A Practical Guide to Challenging Your Competitor's Advertising Claims
Learn how to evaluate the options for challenging a competitors claim, including initiating an NAD proceeding, alerting regulators and litigating under the Lanham Act.
Kelley Drye has one of the nation’s largest and most effective advertising litigation practices. The firm’s advertising lawyers have successfully brought or defended a range of false or comparative advertising cases in recent years under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, which prohibits false or misleading claims in national advertising. Our team of specialized litigators has experience representing clients competing in a range of industries. Your legal matters benefit from the strategic insights and innovative approaches we have put into play for famous brands across industries.
Representative Experience
Kelley Drye has extensive expertise in comparative advertising and trademark cases under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. Within the past few years, we have successfully brought forward or defended advertising and trademark cases including the following representative matters:- Defending a beverage producer in a false advertising case brought under the Lanham Act by a competitor.
- Defended the maker of dietary supplements in an unfair competition
lawsuit brought in the U.S. Eastern District Court of New York. The
jury unanimously found that our client’s statement, used on
wholesalers’ and retailers’ store brand packaging for joint care
products, inviting consumers to compare the products to a competitor’s
products, is not false and misleading and does not violate Section 43
of the Lanham Act.
- Defended a toy manufacturer in a trade dress and copyright
infringement action. Case was dismissed by the plaintiff following
early discovery and motion practice.
- Defended the manufacturer of packaging machinery against patent infringement claims. A global settlement was negotiated after Markman briefing and argument.
- Served as litigation counsel in a closely-watched search engine
advertising case. Case settled after successful oppositions to both the
plaintiff’s motion to dismiss Lanham Act counterclaims and a subsequent
motion for summary judgment.
- Defended a leading apparel company in trade dress infringement claims arising from pocket stitching designs.
- Challenged comparative superiority claims made by an appliance manufacturer for its steam vacuum products.
- Defended a distributor of motor scooters from claims of reverse
passing off under the Lanham Act. Case was dismissed with prejudice
after denial of plaintiff’s preliminary injunction motion.
- On behalf of a telecommunications provider, obtained preliminary
injunction in federal court in Atlanta enjoining the defendant’s claim
regarding the speed of dial up service.
- Challenged implied superiority and establishment claims made by
competitor wireless communications company in connection with new
product launch.
- Defended a toy maker in an 18-day bench trial in the Eastern
District of New York in which an inventor claimed violations of the
Lanham Act. The Court ruled in our client’s favor.
- Obtained summary judgment dismissal of Lanham Act and state law claims arising out of alleged misappropriation of plaintiff’s concept for a toy product.
