Pink Sheet is part of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC’s registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction
UsernamePublicRestriction

Similac "1st Choice Of Doctors" Claim Injunction Reversed

This article was originally published in The Tan Sheet

Executive Summary

Abbott Labs plans to resume use of the "1st Choice of Doctors" claim in labeling and advertising for Similac infant formula following a Jan. 5 federal appellate ruling overturning a preliminary injunction restricting use of the statement.

You may also be interested in...



Similac claim

Appeals court ruling allowing Abbott Labs to use the "1st Choice of Doctors" claim on infant formula "violates the intent of the Lanham Act by rendering evidence of consumer perception legally irrelevant," Mead Johnson tells the U.S. Supreme Court. The Bristol-Myers Squibb division, which markets Enfamil formula, seeks reversal of a Chicago federal appeals court decision finding the claim is not misleading (1"The Tan Sheet" Jan. 17, p. 4). In an opposition brief to the high court, Abbott asserts the appeals court properly ruled "consumer research may not be used to determine the level of substantiation...that an advertiser should possess in order to render its advertising truthful"

Similac claim

Appeals court ruling allowing Abbott Labs to use the "1st Choice of Doctors" claim on infant formula "violates the intent of the Lanham Act by rendering evidence of consumer perception legally irrelevant," Mead Johnson tells the U.S. Supreme Court. The Bristol-Myers Squibb division, which markets Enfamil formula, seeks reversal of a Chicago federal appeals court decision finding the claim is not misleading (1"The Tan Sheet" Jan. 17, p. 4). In an opposition brief to the high court, Abbott asserts the appeals court properly ruled "consumer research may not be used to determine the level of substantiation...that an advertiser should possess in order to render its advertising truthful"

Similac claim

Appeals court ruling allowing Abbott Labs to use the "1st Choice of Doctors" claim on infant formula "violates the intent of the Lanham Act by rendering evidence of consumer perception legally irrelevant," Mead Johnson tells the U.S. Supreme Court. The Bristol-Myers Squibb division, which markets Enfamil formula, seeks reversal of a Chicago federal appeals court decision finding the claim is not misleading (1"The Tan Sheet" Jan. 17, p. 4). In an opposition brief to the high court, Abbott asserts the appeals court properly ruled "consumer research may not be used to determine the level of substantiation...that an advertiser should possess in order to render its advertising truthful"

Related Content

Topics

UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

IV001392

Ask The Analyst

Ask the Analyst is free for subscribers.  Submit your question and one of our analysts will be in touch.

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel