When a manufacturer files a Lanham Act claim under the Tariff Act for competitive injuries caused by unfair trade practices, is the claim barred as a matter of law when the International Trade Commission would need to consider the meaning of terms used in the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act in order to determine whether the claim has merit?

QUESTION PRESENTED The Tariff Act of 1930 grants manufacturers the right to file a complaint with the International Trade Commission alleging Lanham Act violations when an importer engages in unfair trade practices. See 19 U.S.C. § 1837. The Tariff Act mandates that the Commission must investigate a complaint and determine whether a violation has occurred, id. § 1337(b)(1), (©), requires other agencies’ to “cooperate fully’ with the Commission, id. § 1334, and makes clear that the statute’s remedies apply “in addition to any other provision of law,” id. § 1337(a)(1). This Court has held that “Congress did not intend the” Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to preclude Lanham Act claims alleging false and misleading advertising for products subject to regulation by the Food & Drug Administration. POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 573 U.S. 102, 119-21 (2014). But the lower courts have divided over how to apply POM Wonderful when a Lanham Act claim requires applying the meaning of terms defined in the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. And the Federal Circuit has now held that, in those circumstances, manufacturers are precluded from exercising their rights under the Tariff Act. The question presented is: When a manufacturer files a Lanham Act claim under the Tariff Act for competitive injuries caused by unfair trade practices, is the claim barred as a matter of law when the International Trade Commission would need to consider the meaning of terms used in the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act in order to determine whether the claim has merit?