2 pages 2 sources APACW Inc. publishes Consumer Watchdog a magazine whose articles consist of the writers personal experiences with and reactions to a variety of products. In the June 1997 issue of Consumer Watchdog a review included this statement: Fungus Co.s Fungo brand athletes foot powder doesnt cut the mustard in comparison to most athletes foot powders on the market and Ive tried them all sports fans. Fungo fails to attack athletes foot with enough force because the product doesnt contain AF88 the active ingredient in any decent athletes foot powder. In fact Fungo contains as much AF88 as any other athletes foot powder on the market. Fungus Co. has filed suit against Nex and CW on the theory that the above statements violated section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. On these facts should Fungus win the section 43(a) case? Why or why not? Discuss fully.