not unlike stealing from a commercial business.” Am. Compl. ¶ 183. As noted above, the Supreme Court has made clear that the Lanham Act does not protect “a communicative product-one that is valued ... for the intellectual content that it conveys, such as a book.” Dastar Corp., 539 U.S. at 33, 123 S.Ct. 2041. Accordingly, Claims 16 and 22 are dismissed with prejudice. 3. Claim 21 — Unlawful Retaliation in Violation of Title VII As an initial matter, Andela has not contested UNC’s Motion with regards to Claim 21. Andela has also failed to make any factual allegations against UNC in Claim 21. Moreover, only an employer can be held liable under Title VII. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2. UNC was not Andela’s employer. While some courts have foun 3), 2002 WL 32334399, at *1 (E.D.N.C. May 4, 2002) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, Claim 23 is dismissed with
holding state of north carolina and state official sued in their official capacity are immune from  1983 and  1985 actions in federal court holding that states and state officials acting in their official capacity are not persons under  1983 holding that a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is a suit against the state itself and not cognizable under  1983 holding that state and its officers sued in their official capacity for damages are not persons suable under  1983 holding that punitive damages are not recoverable against a state official sued in his or her official capacity