1125(a)). Section 1125(a) also prohibits a practice called “reverse palming off,” in which the defendant sells the plaintiffs product under the defendant’s name. See id. (describing reverse passing off under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)). The typical reverse palming off case involves a situation where the defendant acquires a product manufactured by the plaintiff, removes the plaintiffs mark, affixes the defendant’s mark, and sells it as the defendant’s product. See id. at 1300 n. 27; Waldman Publ. Corp. v. Landoll, Inc., 43 F.3d 775, 779-780 (2d Cir.1994) (describing typical reverse palming off scenario). Courts also recognize claims for reverse palming off where the defendant acquires the plaintiffs product, modifies it slightly, and sells it as its own. See Montgomery, 168 F.3d at 1300 n. 27 (<HOLDING>); Woodke v. Dahm, 873 F.Supp. 179, 189-91
holding that plaintiffs infringement claim against defendants laterdeveloped product would be barred by laches and estoppel found applicable to earlier product if subsequent product is equivalent to earlier one under doctrine of equivalents holding that defendants incorporation of plaintiffs computer product into its own cdrom product could constitute claim under 15 usc  1125a holding statements of product superiority and that product was industry approved were puffery holding that a plaintiffs belief that a product could fail in the future is not without more a legal injury sufficient to support plaintiffs claim holding that whether a product is within comment k should be determined on a case by case basis where it is shown that the product is unavoidably unsafe and product of exceptional social need