This year’s supplement features the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Duty Free Americas, Inc. v. Estee Lauder Cos. (DFA), another in a growing body of cases to extend contributory liability doctrine beyond the traditional trademark infringement context. In the years since the Supreme Court decided Inwood Labs., courts have generally been predisposed to consider, if not formally recognize, contributory claims across the spectrum of Lanham Act violations. Their basic reasoning has been that all trademark-based claims lend themselves to contributory causes of action because they derive from common-law torts of unfair competition. In DFA, the court expanded on that reasoning when it recognized a claim for contributory false advertising,concluding that the rationale supporting contributory liability in the trademark infringement context applies with even more force to false advertising. Continue reading Contributory False Advertising ?