Legal Opinion

Castrol, Inc. v. Pennzoil Quaker State Co.

District Court, D. New Jersey

Decided January 4, 2001No. CIV. A. 00-2511PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

WOLIN, District Judge.

In a prior Opinion (“Castrol I”), this Court decided that Pennzoil’s current multimedia advertising campaign transgressed the commercial boundaries of fair play. Moreover, the Court determined that the multimedia campaign was repugnant to the regulatory principles embodied in the Lanham Act. Because of the potential for irreparable harm to Castrol and the compelling public interest in protecting competitors and consumers from false advertising claims, a permanent injunction was entered. Other forms of redress sought by Castrol were reserved for later resolution.…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  2. American Telephone And Telegraph Company v. Winback And Conserve Program, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
  3. United Industries Corp. v. Clorox Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1998
  4. Clorox Co. Puerto Rico v. Proctor & Gamble Commercial Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2000
  5. Castrol Inc. v. Pennzoil Company and Pennzoil Products CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1993

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Avaya Inc. v. Telecom Labs, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2016
  2. Bracco Diagnostics, Inc. v. Amersham Health, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2009
  3. HIPSAVER CO., INC. v. JT Posey Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2007
  4. CollegeNET, Inc. v. XAP CORP.District Court, D. Oregon · 2007
  5. Spalding Sports Worldwide, Inc. v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2002

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API