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"