Legal Opinion
S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Clorox Co.
District Court, E.D. New York
Decided July 18, 1996No. 9:95-cv-02803PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
SEYBERT, District Judge:
This is an action for false advertising, pursuant to § 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B), in which S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. (“SCJ”) seeks a preliminary injunction restraining The Clorox Company (“Clorox”) from making certain challenged advertising claims. These claims, which concern the effectiveness of two competing household roach control products — SCJ’s RAID Max IV Plus Egg Stoppers® (“RAID Max Plus”) and Clorox’s COMBAT Super-Bait® roach baits (“SuperBait”) — were presented last summer in a 30-second television commercial…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- 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
- McNeilab Inc. v. American Home Products CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1988
- mcneil-p.c.c., Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1991
- Castrol, Inc. v. Quaker State Corporation, Quaker State Oil Refining Corporation, and Grey Advertising, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1992
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- United Industries Corp. v. Clorox Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1998
- Bracco Diagnostics, Inc. v. Amersham Health, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2009
- Procter & Gamble Co. v. Ultreo, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2008
- Gillette Co. v. Norelco Consumer Products Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1996
- Spalding Sports Worldwide, Inc. v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2002
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.