Legal Opinion
Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Marion Merrell Dow, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Decided August 22, 1996No. 95-3743PublishedCited by 79 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LOKEN, Circuit Judge.
This appeal challenges the district court’s 1 disposition of false advertising claims by competing manufacturers of diltiazem, a “miracle drug” for the treatment of hypertension and angina. The governing law is the false advertising cause of action provided in § 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B). The court found both parties guilty of false advertising. It awarded no damages to plaintiff Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Pharmaceuticals (“RPR”) and ordered RPR to undertake corrective advertising to counter the effects of its Lanham Act violation. RPR appeals those…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Anderson v. City of Bessemer CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Abbott Laboratories v. Mead Johnson & CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992
- The Coca-Cola Company v. Tropicana Products, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1982
- Castrol Inc. v. Pennzoil Company and Pennzoil Products CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1993
- Alpo Petfoods, Inc. v. Ralston Purina CompanyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1990
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by79 opinions
- United Industries Corp. v. Clorox Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1998
- Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2002
- Balance Dynamics Corporation v. Schmitt Industries, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2000
- Proctor & Gamble Co. v. HaugenCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2000
- Marvin Fielder, Individually and on Behalf of a Class of Similarly Situated Individuals, - Appellees/ Cross v. Credit Acceptance Corporation, - Appellant/ CrossCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1999
74 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.