goodwill of plaintiff with one purchaser could easily affect another purchaser’s view. Moreover, in this case the true relevant purchasing public consisted solely of M & I. Fourth Dimension learned of M & I’s impending purchase of Mobius’s product, and, in bad faith, by way of a knowingly and materially false letter, made a last-ditch effort to torpedo Mobius’s sale and convince M & I to buy its product instead. Although I recognize that § 43(a) “does not have boundless application,” Alfred Dunhill Ltd. v. Interstate Cigar Co., 499 F.2d 232, 237 (2d Cir.1974), to label this behavior as anything but “commercial advertising or promotion” would defeat the broad remedial purposes of the Lanham Act. See, e.g., PPX Enterprises v. Audio Fidelity Enterprises, 818 F.2d 266, 270 (2d Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); Gordon and Breach, 859 F.Supp. at 1532
holding that statutory damages were appropriate for each discrete violation of that states deceptive trade practices act recognizing that although early interpretations of the act were narrow subsequent interpretations demonstrate that the act reaches a wide variety of deceptive commercial practices recognizing that an ambiguity exists when there are at least two reasonable interpretations of the text under review holding that interpretations of a statute which produce absurd results are to be avoided if alternative interpretations consistent with the legislative purpose are available holding that federal courts are bound by state interpretations of state law