& Breach, 859 F.Supp. at 1534 (citing cases). Seven-Up Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., 86 F.3d 1379, 1384 (5 Cir.1996). Another useful summary of the law is found in the Gillette case viz: Section 43(a) is a remedial statute and should therefore be broadly construed. See Seven-Up, 86 F.3d at 1383; Gordon & Breach, 859 F.Supp. at 1532. The statute is not so broad, however, that it includes all statements made by one competitor about its or another competitor’s product. See Garland, 895 F.Supp. at 279 (“[T]his court has found no indication that Congress, through its use of the language ‘commercial advertising or promotion,’ intended to extend Lanham Act coverage to every isolated alleged misrepresentation made to a potential customer by a business competitor.”); Mobius Mgmt., 880 F.Supp. at 1021 (<HOLDING>) (quoting Alfred Dunhill Ltd. v. Interstate
holding no retroactive application holding retroactive application recognizing that the application of a retroactive amendment is discretionary recognizing that  43a does not have boundless application recognizing district court application of the same rule