plaintiff. See Am. Council of Certified Podiatric Physicians & Surgeons v. Am. Bd. of Podiatric Surgery, Inc., 185 F.3d 606, 618 (6th Cir.1999). This confuses the issue under the test for prudential standing, which “is to determine whether the plaintiff is ‘a proper party to invoke judicial resolution of the dispute and the exercise of the court’s remedial powers.’” Conte, 165 F.3d at 225 (emphasis added) (quoting Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 546 n. 8, 106 S.Ct. 1326, 89 L.Ed.2d 501 (1986)). In other words, our focus in resolving Lanham Act standing issues is not whether the uncertain calculation of damages precludes injunctive relief at all, but whether this particular plaintiff should be allowed vindicate the public interest. See Joint Stock, 266 F.3d at 184 (<HOLDING>). Accepting Dr. Ford’s argument would
holding that plaintiffs may not circumvent the requirements for prudential standing by relying on forms of relief that benefit the public at large holding that congress may dispense with prudential standing requirements recognizing prudential concerns underlying antitrust standing restrictions holding that constitutional requirements under article iii and prudential requirement that plaintiffs be the proper proponents of the particular legal rights on which they base their suits are distinct aspects of standing inquiry holding that no public policy stated where employee and not public at large would benefit from employees whistleblowing actions