Church & Dwight Co. v. Clorox Co.
840 F. Supp. 2d 717
S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- C&D sues to preliminarily enjoin Clorox from airing a misleading cat litter commercial.
- Clorox’s Jar Test is the challenged lab test supporting its odor claims.
- Court held evidentiary hearing and reviewed materials; test deemed unreliable.
- Advertising claims center on carbon vs baking soda odor elimination in litter.
- Court finds literal falsity and likelihood of irreparable harm absent injunction.
- Clorox voluntarily stopped a prior problematic commercials; instant case follows a new ad.”],
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jar Test is sufficiently reliable to prove literal falsity | C&D argues Jar Test is unreliable and cannot support implied superiority | Clorox contends Jar Test valid and illustrative of odor reduction | Jar Test unreliable; cannot support implied claims |
| Whether the advertising is literally false or misleading | C&D asserts carbon outperforms baking soda in litter context | Clorox argues general odor reduction comparison | Claims deemed literally false given Jar Test flaws |
| Whether irreparable harm is shown without injunction | Misleading ad diverts customers; material misrepresentation | No irreparable harm without demonstrated impact | Irreparable harm shown; injunctive relief granted |
| Whether the court should grant preliminary injunction given Lanham Act standards | Likelihood of success on merits plus harm suffices | Presumptions disfavored; evidence required | High likelihood of success and irreparable harm; injunction granted |
| Whether the doctrine of falsity by necessary implication applies | Claims imply broader superiority over baking soda | Possible multiple interpretations; not necessarily false | Implication deemed literally false; supports injunction |
Key Cases Cited
- Castrol Inc. v. Quaker State Corp., 977 F.2d 57 (2d Cir.1992) (reliability and essential falsity inquiry for establishment claims)
- Time Warner Cable, Inc. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 497 F.3d 144 (2d Cir.2007) (presumption of irreparable harm where literal falsity and targeted advertising)
- Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay, Inc., 600 F.3d 93 (2d Cir.2010) ( Lanham Act falsity and consumer confusion)
- McNeil-P.C.C., Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 719 F.2d 1544 (2d Cir.1991) (irreparable harm considerations in false advertising)