on their shirts. C. The Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act (LUTPA). The requirements of the LUTPA “mirror those of the Lanham Act.” Prudhomme v. Procter & Gamble Co., 800 F.Supp. 390, 395 (E.D.La.1992); see also Louisiana World Exposition, Inc. v. Logue, 746 F.2d 1033 (5th Cir.1984) (“Likelihood of confusion is the essential ingredient for claims of unfair competition under both the Lanham Act and the Louisiana [unfair trade practices] statute”). For the reasons stated, the court concludes that plaintiff LSU is entitled to summary judgment on its claim under the L.UTPA. D.Claims of Collegiate Licensing Company (CLC). Defendants argue that the CLC lacks standing to sue because it does not own any of the trademarks at issue. The record reflects that CLC is the “ 37, 142 (5th Cir.1972) (<HOLDING>). Although the minimal exceptions to the CLC’s
holding that exercising general jurisdiction over defendant was improper where its actual sales in florida were a small percentage of the total sales and therefore these sales were de minimis  holding that no person can commence or maintain an action in a court of record as agent for another unless he is a regularly licensed attorney holding that sales made to contractor who builds roads for the state are not sales to the state and therefore are not exempt holding that 15 usc  1125a does not authorize suits by consumers holding that exclusive sales agent was a person damaged by the unlawful competition of defendant and therefore was entitled to maintain a civil action for injunctive relief under  1125a