The U.S. Supreme Court granted review of the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Static Control Components, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., 697 F.3d 387 (6th Cir. 2012), cert. granted, 133 S. Ct. 2766 (U.S. June 3, 2013) (No. 12-873). Static Control alleged that Lexmark violated the Lanham Act by falsely advertising that Static Control’s products impermissibly utilized Lexmark’s intellectual property. The district court dismissed Static Control’s claims, holding that Static Control lacked standing because it and Lexmark were not actual competitors. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit noted there was a circuit split concerning the proper test for standing to bring false advertising claims under the Lanham Act. The Seventh, Ninth and Tenth Circuits apply a strict, categorical test that requires that the plaintiff and the defendant be actual competitors. By contrast, the Second Circuit has adopted a “reasonable interest” approach, allowing plaintiffs to bring Lanham Act claims if they can demonstrate that they have a reasonable interest to protect against the alleged false advertising. And the Third, Fifth, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits have utilized yet a third approach, applying the same five-factor standing test used for antitrust claims. The Sixth Circuit joined the Second Circuit in adopting the “reasonable interest” test. Next term, the Supreme Court will decide which is the proper test for determining a party’s standing to bring false advertising claims under the Lanham Act.