Legal Opinion
Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. Richardson-Vicks, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided April 24, 1990No. 89-3654PublishedCited by 194 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
BECKER, Circuit Judge.
This appeal, from an order of the district court denying plaintiff/appellant Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp.’s request for a preliminary injunction against defendant/ap-pellee Richardson-Vicks, Inc., is another installment in the cough syrup marketing wars. Sandoz alleges that Vicks’s representations about its product, Vicks Pediatric Formula 44 (“Pediatric 44”), constituted false and deceptive advertising in violation of section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (1988).
At the nub of the controversy is Vicks’s assertion that Pediatric 44…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Abbott Laboratories v. GardnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- McKart v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Federal Trade Commission v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Ppx Enterprises, Inc., Mod Music, Inc., and J.H. Records, Inc., Ppx Enterprises, Inc. v. Audiofidelity Enterprises, Inc. And Dante J. PuglieseCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1987
- L'Aiglon Apparel, Inc. v. Lana Lobell, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1954
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by194 opinions
- Warner-Lambert Company v. Breathasure, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
- Abbott Laboratories v. Mead Johnson & CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992
- American Telephone And Telegraph Company v. Winback And Conserve Program, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
- Novartis Consumer Health, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson-Merck Consumer Pharmaceuticals Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2002
- United Industries Corp. v. Clorox Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1998
189 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.