United Industries Corp. v. Clorox Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
140 F.3d 1175 (1998)
Relevant factsFree
United's (plaintiff) Maxattrax commercial truthfully stated it killed roaches within 24 hours while comparing itself to a generically depicted product resembling Clorox's (defendant) Combat, implying the comparison product lacked that same speed; United sought a declaratory judgment the ad didn't violate the Lanham Act, Clorox counterclaimed for false advertising and sought a preliminary injunction, and the district court denied it.
IssueFree
Whether a statement that is literally true or ambiguous may still amount to a false statement for purposes of Lanham Act false-advertising claims, if it conveys a false impression, misleads, or is likely to deceive consumers.
Related cases
Clorox Co. Puerto Rico v. Proctor & Gamble Commercial Co.228 F.3d 24 (2000)Innovation Ventures, LLC v. N.V.E., Inc.694 F.3d 723 (2012)Church & Dwight Co. v. The Clorox Company840 F. Supp. 2d 717 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)Johnson & Johnson * Merck Consumer Pharmaceuticals Co. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.960 F.2d 94 (2d Cir. 1992)Coca-Cola Co. v. Tropicana Products, Inc.690 F.2d 312 (1982)