157 F. Supp. 3d 190
N.D.N.Y.2016Background
- Chobani and Dannon are direct yogurt market competitors disputing fair advertising in Chobani’s Simply 100 campaign.
- Chobani sought a declaratory judgment that its advertising containing natural ingredients and lack of artificial sweeteners/preservatives complied with the Lanham Act.
- Dannon counterclaimed under the Lanham Act and state law, seeking injunctions and damages.
- The court addressed whether Dannon’s request for a preliminary injunction should be granted to halt the campaign pending trial.
- The court analyzed likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of hardships, and public interest, and concluded an injunction was warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Dannon likely to prove literal falsity by necessary implication? | Dannon argues the campaign falsely implies sucralose is unsafe. | Chobani contends statements about chlorine are true or puffery, not literally false. | Yes; likely to prevail on literal falsity by implication. |
| Does Dannon have irreparable harm given the allegedly false advertising? | Dannon asserts direct competition and harm to sales/goodwill warrant irreparable harm. | Chobani challenges the presumption of irreparable harm but acknowledges competition. | Yes; irreparable harm shown based on direct competition and probable loss of sales/goodwill. |
| Do the balance of hardships and public interest favor an injunction? | Dannon argues hardship outweighs Chobani’s interest in free advertising. | Chobani argues public interests do not justify restricting truthful advertising; harms are reversible. | Yes; balance and public interest favor issuing a preliminary injunction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Nat’l Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (establishes four-factor preliminary injunction standard)
- Time Warner Cable, Inc. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 497 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2007) (false advertising may be proven by literal falsity or by deceptive context)
- Salinger v. Colting, 607 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2010) (discusses evolving standards for injunctions and public-interest considerations)
- Coca-Cola Co. v. Tropicana Prods., Inc., 690 F.2d 312 (2d Cir. 1982) (concepts of implied falsity and consumer deception in advertising)
- S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Clorox Co., 241 F.3d 232 (2d Cir. 2001) (definition and handling of misrepresentation and materiality in Lanham Act claims)
- Time Warner Cable, Inc. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 497 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2007) (illustrates literal falsehood and inference analysis in advertising)
- Castrol Inc. v. Pennzoil Co., 987 F.2d 939 (3d Cir. 1993) (definition of puffery versus actionable statements)
- Polar Corp. v. Coca-Cola Co., 871 F.Supp. 1520 (D. Mass. 1994) (example of misleading advertising harming reputation)