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 before the NAD, involving labeling of store-brand contact lens solutions.

Lutron Electronics in a lawsuit alleging competitors falsely advertised products as "Made in the U.S.A."

Hershey in 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.

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.

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.