Massengill ruling erroneously set "higher" burden of proof for C.B. Fleet -- appeal.
This article was originally published in The Tan Sheet
Executive Summary
MASSENGILL RULING ERRONEOUSLY SET "HIGHER" BURDEN OF PROOF FOR FLEET in its Lanham Act challenge of SmithKline Beecham's advertising for the douche product, C.B. Fleet maintains in a Jan. 31 brief filed in Richmond, Va. federal appeals court. The brief seeks a reevaluation of the Oct. 4 district court ruling that found SmithKline's ad claims for Massengill Extra Cleansing Vinegar and Water disposable douche to be "legitimate and well supported" ("The Tan Sheet" Oct. 21, 1996, p. 5).
You may also be interested in...
Supplement GMP Warning Letters Make Modest Debut In 2010
Finalization of a settlement between the Federal Trade Commission and Rexall Sundown regarding unsupported cellulite treatment claims for the firm's Cellasene dietary supplement hinges upon approval of two related class action settlements pending in California and Florida, according to FTC
In Brief
Combe sells most of its OTC brands
People In Brief
Perrigo promotes in pricing, planning