Semco, Inc. v. Amcast, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that by limiting the reach of the Lanham Act to “false and misleading speech that is encompassed within the [Supreme Court’s] ‘commercial speech’ doctrine,” the House intended to guarantee its Constitutionality
• finding that an article was commercial speech because the article “refer[red] generally to Amcast products, and a rational jury could easily find that Amcast had an economic motivation for submitting the article”
• “Although [the article at issue] does more than merely ‘propose a commercial transaction’ and thus may not meet a core definition of ‘commercial speech,’ the Supreme Court has extended the category to include speech similar to the article.”
• article written for trade magazine may be classified as commercial promotion
• finding commercial advertising or promotion based on that distinction

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).