Lanham Act/Competitor Challenges to Advertising
Whether challenging a competitor or defending against false advertising claims in court or at the National Advertising Division (NAD), clients benefit from Arnold & Porter's collaborative approach to advertising challenges. Our team comprises experienced Lanham Act litigators and regulatory attorneys who understand the federal and state advertising issues and regulations governing advertising claims. The depth and breadth of our practice positions the firm to respond to the demands of accelerated litigation and self-regulatory challenges that characterize false advertising cases, whether aggressively defending our clients' advertising or attacking deceptive advertising claims made by our clients' competitors. Our expertise also allows us to seamlessly develop Daubert-proof survey evidence of consumer perception and decision-making, as well as work with scientific and technical experts to evaluate substantive advertising claims and anticipate risks for other related litigation.
-
Combined Experience of Litigation and Claim Substantiation Counseling: Our litigators frequently partner with the firm's advertising specialists to offer comprehensive representation for our clients.
-
Comprehensive Understanding of the Role of Consumer Perception: Working with the top consumer survey experts who conduct and analyze consumer perception surveys, we develop Daubert-proof expert evidence on consumer perception and consumer decision-making issues.
-
Track Record in All Forums: Our team effectively resolves challenges commenced before federal and state courts and self-regulatory bodies, such as the NAD.
Experience Highlights
-
Alcon Laboratories in a false advertising dispute at the NAD involving labeling of store-brand contact lens solutions.
-
Lutron Electronics in a lawsuit alleging competitors falsely advertised products as "Made in the USA."
-
Hershey in a lawsuit by ZonePerfect asserting false advertising and other claims relating to Hershey's SmartZone nutrition bar, resulting in denial of preliminary injunction motion and voluntary dismissal of case.
-
Pfizer in a Lanham Act case and an NAD arbitration involving promotion of animal-health products.
-
Sidney Frank Importing Company in a false advertising case involving advertisements for Grey Goose vodka.
-
Glaxo Wellcome in a false advertising case involving direct-to-consumer advertising of a prescription drug product.
-
Staples in a preliminary injunction suit challenging client's comparative advertising.
-
Sanofi Consumer Healthcare in its challenge of Cosmederm TriCalm's advertising that involved aggressive comparative claims disparaging hydrocortisone, the active ingredient in Cortizone-10.
-
Leading infant formula company in challenging competitor advertising involving a misleading proprietary ingredient name.
Key Contacts
Related Services
Recognition
-
Chambers USAFood & Beverages: Regulatory and Litigation (Nationwide) (2023)
Retail (Nationwide) (2023)
Advertising: Transactional and Regulatory (Nationwide) (2023)
Product Liability & Mass Tort: The Elite (Nationwide) (2023)
Product Liability: Regulatory (Nationwide) (2023)
Intellectual Property (Nationwide) (2023)
Intellectual Property: Trademark, Copyright & Trade Secrets (Nationwide; Washington, D.C.; New York) (2023)
Intellectual Property: Litigation (Washington, D.C.) (2023)
Intellectual Property: Patent (New York) (2023) -
Best Law FirmsAdvertising Law – Colorado (2024)
Litigation - Intellectual Property – Chicago; Colorado; National; Washington, D.C.; New York; San Francisco (2024)
Trademark – National, New York, Los Angeles (2024)
Product Liability Litigation - Defendants -
The Legal 500 USFirms to Watch Advertising and Marketing: Transactional and Regulatory (2023)
Product Liability, Mass Tort and Class Action — Defense: Consumer Products (Including Tobacco) (2022 - 2023)
Product Liability and Mass Tort Defense: Consumer Products (including tobacco) (2023)
Trademarks: Litigation (2023)
Intellectual Property: Trademark, Copyright & Trade Secrets (USA) (2023)
