Legal Opinion
S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., v. the Clorox Company
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided February 23, 2001No. 2000PublishedCited by 154 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HALL, District Judge:
This case involves a Lanham Act challenge to the truthfulness of a television commercial and print advertisement depicting the plight of an animated goldfish in a Ziploc Slide-Loc bag that is being held upside down and is leaking water. Plaintiff-appellee S.C.. Johnson & Son manufactures the Ziploc bags targeted by the advertisements. In an Order dated April 6, 2000, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Griesa, J.) permanently enjoined the defendant-appellant, The Clorox Company, manufacturer of Ziploc’s rival Glad-Lock resealable…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Lipton v. Nature Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
- The Coca-Cola Company v. Tropicana Products, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1982
- In re Baldwin-United Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1985
- Peregrine Myanmar Ltd. And Peregrine Capital Myanmar Ltd. v. Miriam Marshall SegalCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1996
- Johnson & Johnson v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1992
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by154 opinions
- City of New York v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2011
- Time Warner Cable, Inc. v. DirecTV, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2007
- Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2010
- Pearl Murphy and Theodore Murphy v. Arlington Central School District Board of EducationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2002
- Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2002
149 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.