Author Anita Flynn objected to the use of her name on a revised edition of a book she had originally co-authored.  She claimed that the continued attribution created confusion about her role in the revised edition.  The court granted summary judgment on the ground that Flynn's name lacked secondary meaning and therefore was not protected under the Lanham Act. Flynn v. AK Peters, Ltd., Case No. 03-1676 (1st Cir. July 26, 2004).

Query: The Court only considers 43(a)(1)(A) involving common law trademark infringement. Why isn't this actionable under the Lanham Act as a false representation about the characteristics for the book under Section 43(a)(1)(B)?