Midlothi-an correctly notes that, “[s]inee a trademark is not only a symbol of origin, but a symbol of a certain type of goods or services and their level of quality, a substantial change in the nature or quality of the goods sold under a mark may so change the nature of the thing symbolized that the mark becomes fraudulent and/or that the original rights are abandoned.” 3 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 17:24 (4th ed.1996). It is well settled that a company can be liable under unfair-competition laws, including the Lanham Act, not only when it infringes upon the mark of a second company, but also when it ‘passes off one of its own products for another of its products. Royal Baking Powder Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 281 F. 744 (2d Cir.1922) (<HOLDING>). In this context, however, such use of a
holding that though we do not have exclusive jurisdiction over unfair competition claims our own circuit law nonetheless determines when inequitable conduct also constitutes unfair competition holding that as in an action alleging infringement of a mark likelihood of confusion is the essence of an unfair competition claim holding in a prelanham act context that a manufacturer of baking powder unlawfully deceived the public and engaged in an unfair method of competition when it substituted a key ingredient in its wellknown brand of powder to create an inferior powder while continuing to use a similar label holding that antitrust violations are unfair methods of competition under the ftc act holding that the title of an act is not an index but is merely a label