Legal Opinion
United Industries Corp. v. Clorox Co.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Decided April 13, 1998No. 97-3492PublishedCited by 300 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.
The Clorox Company appeals from the district court’s 1 denial of its motion for preliminary injunctive relief brought within the context of its counterclaim against United Industries Corporation for false advertising under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). We affirm.
I
Clorox and United Industries are competing producers of roach bait insecticide products. 2 Clorox manufactures and sells Combat, the top-selling brand of roach bait, while United Industries manufactures and sells the Maxattrax brand of roach bait, a small and relatively new participant…
2Cases cited33 opinions
- Anderson v. City of Bessemer CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C L Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1981
- Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Abbott Laboratories v. Mead Johnson & CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by300 opinions
- Hickson Corp. v. Northern Crossarm Co.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2004
- Novartis Consumer Health, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson-Merck Consumer Pharmaceuticals Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2002
- Clorox Co. Puerto Rico v. Proctor & Gamble Commercial Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2000
- PLANNED PARENT. MN, N. DAKOTA, S. DAKOTA v. RoundsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2008
- Time Warner Cable, Inc. v. DirecTV, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2007
295 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.