Warner-Lambert Co. v. BreathAsure, Inc.
Citation | 204 F.3d 87 |
Decision Date | 08 February 2000 |
Docket Number | No. 98-6502.,98-6502. |
Parties | WARNER-LAMBERT COMPANY, Appellant, v. BREATHASURE, INC. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Thomas C. Morrison, (Argued), Eugene M. Gelernter, Kathleen H. Dooley, Shanley & Fisher, P.C., Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler, LLP, New York City, for appellant.
Joel M. Wolosky, (Argued), Sharon H. Stern, Parker, Chapin, Flattau Klimpl, LLP, New York City, Mark I. Peroff, Trademark and Patent Counselors of
America, P.C., New York City, for appellee.
BEFORE: McKEE, RENDELL, Circuit Judges and GARTH, Senior Circuit Judge.
Warner-Lambert Company sued BreathAsure, Inc. under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act based upon Warner-Lambert's belief that the trade names, "BreathAsure" and "BreathAsure-D," for certain of defendant's breath fresheners constituted a false and misleading claim that gave BreathAsure an unfair advantage in the sale of those products, and injured Warner-Lambert in the sale of its breath freshening products. On the third day of the ensuing trial, BreathAsure stipulated that scientific evidence established that its "BreathAsure" products were not effective against bad breath. As a result, the District Court permanently enjoined BreathAsure from continuing to advertise that those products were effective. However, the court refused to enjoin use of the trade names "BreathAsure" or "BreathAsure-D" because the court concluded that Warner-Lambert had not demonstrated that it was likely to be harmed by the continued use of those product names. This appeal followed.1 For the reasons that follow, we will reverse.
Warner-Lambert is a leading manufacturer of several well-known breath freshening products, including Certs, Clorets, Listerine, and Dentyne. Those products are in the form of gum, mints, and mouthwash. BreathAsure, Inc. also markets several breath freshening products, including BreathAsure and BreathAsure-D, which are the subjects of this dispute. BreathAsure's breath freshening products are capsules that are swallowed. For several years prior to this lawsuit, BreathAsure, heavily promoted its BreathAsure products as being effective against bad breath. The theme of much of the advertising was that the capsules worked effectively at the source of bad breath and were, therefore, superior to products that simply masked or covered bad breath such as gum, mints and mouthwash. One such ad contained a series of photographs depicting food, a couple appearing to share a tender moment, and a package of BreathAsure. The following captions appear beneath those images: "if you eat and we all do," "and you want to get close," "you need BreathAsure the internal breath freshener," "BreathAsure for the confidence of clean fresh breath." The label on the package of BreathAsure in this ad read: "The internal Breath Freshener All-Natural", and a banner across the front of the packaging proclaimed: "lasts & lasts & lasts." Much of defendant's advertising tells the reader to "stop masking bad breath" with products that "just cover-up bad breath." Another of defendant's advertisements contained an image of a woman with the bottom of her sweater pulled up over her navel and the legend: "Fight the problem at its source" with a dotted arrow pointing to the woman's stomach. Plaintiff's Exhibit 101J.
The National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau investigated defendant's advertising and concluded that defendant's claim that BreathAsure and BreathAsure-D were effective breath fresheners was not supported by any reliable scientific evidence. Accordingly, it recommended that defendant discontinue or substantially modify its ads for its breath fresheners.2 App. 133, A.138-39, A.185, A.189.
Based upon the unsupported claims made in advertising that BreathAsure and BreathAsure-D were effective breath fresheners, Warner-Lambert filed the instant complaint under S 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.S 1125(a), seeking to permanently enjoin BreathAsure from advertising that its BreathAsure products are effective breath fresheners. Warner-Lambert also sought a permanent injunction against use of the name "BreathAsure" based upon its contention that the name itself communicates a false and misleading message. Warner-Lambert did not seek monetary damages. Despite BreathAsure's claims that its capsules are superior to products that merely mask bad breath, evidence produced during the instant litigation established that bad breath originates in the mouth, not in the stomach. Therefore, Warner-Lambert maintains that effective breath freshening products must either mask offensive oral odors, or attack bacteria in the mouth. A.180.
On the third day of the bench trial on Warner-Lambert's complaint, BreathAsure stipulated that "scientific studies presented in this case demonstrate that BreathAsure and BreathAsure-D are not effective in reducing bad breath. . . ." BreathAsure also consented to an injunction prohibiting it from advertising that its capsules were effective breath fresheners. However, BreathAsure continued to resist any injunction against the use of the trade names "BreathAsure" and "BreathAsure-D," and insisted that those names did not violate the Lanham Act.
At the completion of the bench trial, the District Court issued an oral opinion in which it held that the trade names misrepresented the products' qualities. The court stated:
A.13-14.
A.25-6.
The court relied upon the following in reaching its findings: (i) sales trends for the BreathAsure products had decreased in recent years; (ii) Warner-Lambert's sales of Listerine, Certs, and Dentyne had increased; (iii) Warner-Lambert had not called any consumer witnesses to testify that they had switched from using Warner-Lambert's breath-freshening products to BreathAsure's products; (iv) Warner-Lambert had not presented consumer surveys indicating the future impact of BreathAsure products on Warner-Lambert's sales; and (v) inasmuch as BreathAsure's products were "niche products" that were not used in the same manner as Warner-Lambert's products, there was no basis to conclude that consumers were likely to switch products rather than simply use "BreathAsure" to supplement Warner-Lambert's products.
On appeal, Warner-Lambert contends that the District Court was clearly erroneous in its findings, and that it erred in not satisfying the necessary burden to enjoin use of those trade names.
Our analysis must necessarily begin with Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act which provides in relevant part:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Reese v. Pook & Pook, LLC.
...that there is a likelihood of injury to the plaintiff in terms of declining sales, loss of good will, etc.” Warner–Lambert Co. v. Breathasure, Inc. , 204 F.3d 87, 91–92 (3d Cir.2000) (alteration in original) (quoting Johnson & Johnson–Merck Consumer Pharm. Co. v. Rhone–Poulenc Rorer Pharm.,......
-
Bracco Diagnostics, Inc. v. Amersham Health, Inc.
...that there is a likelihood of injury to the plaintiff in terms of declining sales, loss of good will, etc." Warner-Lambert Co. v. BreathAsure, Inc., 204 F.3d 87, 91-92 (3d Cir.2000); Rhone-Poulenc, 19 F.3d at 129 (quoting U.S. Healthcare, Inc. v. Blue Cross of Greater Phila., 898 F.2d 914, ......
-
Child Evang. Fellowship, Nj v. Stafford Tp. School
...and the ultimate decision to grant the preliminary injunction is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Warner-Lambert Co. v. Breathasure, Inc., 204 F.3d 87, 89 n. 1 (3d Cir.2000). When First Amendment rights are at issue, however, this standard is modified. Although we normally will not dis......
-
Rockwell Automation, Inc. v. Radwell Int'l, Inc.
...and5) there is a likelihood of injury to the plaintiff in terms of declining sales, loss of good will, etc.Warner-Lambert v. Breathasure, 204 F.3d 87, 91-92 (3d Cir.2000) [citing Johnson & Johnson-Merck Consumer Pharm. Co. v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Pharm., Inc., 19 F.3d 125, 129 (3d Cir.1994)]......
-
False Advertising Frequently Asked Questions on United States
...(2d Cir. 1988); Abbott Laboratories v. Mead Johnson & Co., 971 F.2d 6 (7th Cir. 1992); and Warner-Lambert Co. v. Breath Assure, Inc., 204 F.3d 87 (3d Cir. Many advertising claims are based on the results of scientific or market research. If the research does not substantiate the claim, ......
-
Federal Law of Unfair Competition
...with caution. 93. Pernod Ricard USA, LLC v. Bacardi U.S.A., Inc., 653 F.3d 241, 248 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing Warner-Lambert v. Breathasure, 204 F.3d 87, 91-92 (3d Cir. 2000)) (alteration in original); see also American Council of Certified Podiatric Physicians & Surgeons v. American Bd. of Po......