trademark protection, § 43 “is one of the few provisions that goes beyond trademark protection.” Id. at 29, 123 S.Ct. 2041. Section 43 of the Lanham Act creates liability for what is called “passing off’ and “reverse passing off.” Id. at 28 n. 1, 123 S.Ct. 2041. False advertising, or “ ‘passing off occurs when one misrepresents his own goods or services as someone else’s and ‘reverse passing off occurs when one misrepresents someone else’s goods or services as his own.” Id. In Dastar, the Supreme Court refused to extend Lanham Act protection to “a communicative product-one that is valued ... for the intellectual content that it conveys, such as a book.” Id. at 33, 123 S.Ct. 2041. The Lanham Act, therefore, does not create a cause of action for plagiarism. See id. at 37, 123 S.Ct. 2041 (<HOLDING>). Andela alleges in Claim 16 that Harrington
holding that the separate earlier sale of the defunct business tangible assets rendered the later sale of the trademark invalid holding that it is impossible to allege a lanham act claim without the infringing mark being used to identify the goods or services to the public holding lanham act applies only to tangible goods offered for sale not the author of any idea concept or communication holding that buckhannon applies to the attorneys fees provision of the idea holding that the commercial use requirement of section 1125c is virtually synonymous with the in connection with the sale offering for sale distribution or advertising of goods and services requirement of the lanham act