asserted a sufficient commercial interest or suffered an actual competitive harm that would satisfy the Conte Bros, standard. Specifically, as the plaintiffs admit, they have no commercial presence in the United States. In fact, they do not plan on obtaining a presence here until and unless they win this lawsuit. As a result, even though the plaintiffs and defendants are “head-to-head” or direct competitors over in Russia, they do not compete at all, whether directly or indirectly, in the United States. Without a commercial presence, the court cannot conclude that the plaintiffs have asserted a legitimate commercial interest to protect or have suffered a tangible competitive harm within the meaning of the Lanham Act. See PDK Labs, Inc. v. Friedlander, 103 F.3d 1105, 1112 (2d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); see also Stanfield v. Osborne Indus., Inc.,
holding that a consumer can institute a products liability suit for economic loss to the product recognizing products liability and products actions based on negligence as part of the general maritime law recognizing that the litigant did not currently sell a  product that competed with his opponents products regardless of whether that par ty was acting lawfully or unlawfully holding that gas liberated by the insureds manufacturing process was not the insureds product because it did not fit the common sense definition of products as goods or services which the insured deals in as his stock or trade stating that the term disposed of in the policys definition of your product did not detract from the generally understood meaning of the term product  holding that the determination of whether a products dangers are obvious is made from the perspective of an ordinary user of the product rather than an ordinary person who is unfamiliar with the product