ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Consumer Law Blogs -> Reasonable Basis

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Consumer Law

: Reasonable Basis

Claim interpretation -- context counts

ADVERTISEMENTS

A recent decision by the District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin is a reminder that advertising claims must be evaluated in context and from the perspective of the intended audience, especially ads that target industry professionals rather than consumers. Schering-Plough Healthcare Products, Inc. v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc., 2008 WL 582738 (E.D. Wis., Feb., 29, 2008).  The relevant facts were not in dispute.   Schering-Plough and Schwartz Pharma both market Polyethylene Glycol 3350 laxatives.  Because of Food and Drug Administration regulations, Schering-Plough had the exclusive right to sell the product over-the-counter, while Schwarz Pharma had to market its product as prescription-only, and placed "Rx only" and "prescription only" on the label.

In a lawsuit alleging false advertising under federal Lanham Act, Schering Plough asserted that the Rx Only and Prescription Only labels communicated the message that "all Polyethylene Glycol 3350 laxatives" were prescription-only.  Examining the claims in the context of the entire label and from the viewpoint of the intended audience, licensed pharmacists, the Court concluded that a reasonable fact finder would conclude that the statements referred to the products on which they appear, not the entire category of Polyethylene Glycol 3350 products.  Even though this was a ruling on summary judgment and all reasonable inferences were drawn in favor of the non-moving party (Schwarz), Schwarz had the better side of this argument.  Reasonable consumers would be unlikely to interpret the claim as Schering-Plough alleged, and it would be unreasonable for a licensed pharmacists to read a product label and believe that statements on that label pertain to the products of some other manufacturer.

Rebecca Tushnet has a detailed discussion of the decision here.

Full post as published by Reasonable Basis on March 14, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Blog Posts
Search Blog Directory:

Search Blog Directory:

Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.4603 secs (from cache 09/19/14 08:42:39)