Clorox and Church & Dwight recently settled a lawsuit relating to cat litter. (News release here.) The basis for the lawsuit was Church & Dwight’s allegation that Clorox was airing an advertisement which misleadingly implied that cats preferred Clorox’s Fresh Step cat litter to Church & Dwight’s Arm and Hammer Super Scoop cat litter: "The Clorox Advertisements… Continue Reading
Tag Archives: Comparative Advertising
Medline Industries, Inc. v. 3M Company (False Advertising Complaint Attached)
Posted in Advertising, False Advertising, Law Suits, Marketingv. (Medline Sterillium Rub) (3M Avagard Surgical Scrub) In a very recent false advertising lawsuit, Medline Industries is all lathered up, alleging that 3M Company is playing dirty in the surgical hand antiseptic marketplace by making false and misleading statements in advertising about 3M’s Avagard brand surgical scrub and Medline’s competing Sterillium Rub brand surgical hand antiseptic. Here is… Continue Reading
Using Another’s Body to Sell Your Products? The Problem of Airbrushing Non-Traditional Trademarks
Posted in Advertising, Branding, Food, Goodwill, Infringement, Loss of Rights, Marketing, Non-Traditional Trademarks, Product Configurations, Product Packaging, Sight, TrademarksAirbrushing is a familiar technique among advertisers looking to avoid the risk of trademark infringement or dilution liability when branded props of others appear and would otherwise be recognizable. It can work well when removing a traditional visual trademark, i.e., a logo or word mark, because there can be no likelihood of confusion with (or dilution of) a visual… Continue Reading









