Q. "CW, Inc. publishes Consumer Watchdog, a magazine whose articles consist of writers' personal experiences with also reactions to a variety of products. In June 1997 issue of Consumer Watchdog, a review included this statement: "Fungus Co.'s "Fungo" brand athlete's foot powder doesn't cut mustard in comparison to most athlete's foot powders on market-- also I've tried m all, sports fans. Fungo fails to attack athlete's foot with enough force because product doesn't contain AF88, active ingredient in any decent athlete's foot powder." In fact, Fungo contains as much AF88 as any or athlete's foot powder on market. Fungus Co. has filed suit against Next also CW on theory that above statements violated section 43(a) of Lanham Act. On se facts, should Fungus win section 43(a) case? Why or why not? Discuss fully.