or to deceive ... as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of [one person’s] goods, services, or commercial activities by another person.” 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1). Facebook’s challenge to this “false association” or “false endorsement” claim is related, but not identical, to its argument that plaintiffs have failed to allege injury sufficient to support the misappropriation claims. The Lanham Act is intended “to regulate commerce” and “to protect persons engaged in such commerce against unfair competition.” 15 U.S.C. § 1127. As such, plaintiffs pursuing a false association or false endorsement claim must be able to allege some “commercial interest” in their names and likenesses that was injured by Defendant’s actions. See Waits v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 978 F.2d 1093, 1110 (9th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>) As the Waits court observed, absent such
holding that for the purposes of standing to bring an action to recover on a contract privity is established by proving the defendant was a party to an enforceable contract with either the plaintiff or a party who assigned its cause of action to the plaintiff holding that the holder of the note must act in a manner that effectively provides notice that the holder has exercised his option recognizing that while in a diversity case a federal court may not address the plaintiffs claim unless the plaintiff has standing to sue under state law the plaintiff must also meet article iii standing requirements holding that the rico bar applies even where the plaintiff does not have standing to bring a securities fraud action holding that while standing to bring a lanham act false endorsement claim does not require a plaintiff to be in actual competition with the defendant the plaintiff must have an economic interest akin to that of a trademark holder in controlling the commercial exploitation of his or her identity