Brief Fact Summary. Merck (Plaintiff) alleged that Smithkline’s (Defendant) television commercials were false and misleading as they intentionally exploited a public misperception.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. An advertisement is false and misleading only if a substantial part of the audience holds the false belief and injury is suffered.
But if a plaintiff's theory of recovery is premised upon a claim of implied falsehood, a plaintiff must demonstrate, by extrinsic evidence, that the challenged advertisements tend to mislead or confuse consumers.View Full Point of Law
Held. (Walker, J.)Â No.Â An advertisement is false and misleading only if a substantial part of the audience holds the false belief and injury is suffered.Â There can be no claim without injury.Â Consumer surveys determine what message is actually received by the target audience.Â The trial court reviewed the results of consumer surveys and found that the ads did not communicate that the aluminum in MYLANTA was either harmful or unsafe.Â The trial court’s evaluation of the survey questions was not clearly flawed.Â Affirmed.
Discussion. False or misleading statements about the advertiser’s own products were prohibited under Â§ 43 (a) of the Lanham Act.Â In 1988 the Trademark Law Reform Act amended the law to include disparagement of another’s product.Â False advertising covers both representations made to sophisticated business customers and to individual consumers.