Eastman Chemical Co. v. Plastipure, Inc.
969 F. Supp. 2d 756
W.D. Tex.2013Background
- Eastman sued PlastiPure and CertiChem under the Lanham Act for false advertising about Tritan.
- Jury trial July 2013; verdict for Eastman on all claims after deliberation.
- Defendants moved for JMOL; Eastman moved for final judgment; other related motions were briefed.
- Statements at issue include Tritan has EA, Tritan is harmful, and EA after common-use stresses.
- Court denied JMOL, denied some defenses, and granted Eastman injunctive relief with scope carefully tailored.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was sufficient evidence for the jury on false advertising elements | Eastman contends evidence supported each element and falsity. | Defendants claim insufficient evidence and rely on First Amendment/ONy distinctions. | No JMOL; jury verdict supported by substantial evidence on falsity, deception, and materiality. |
| Whether Defendants were in commercial competition with Eastman | Competition shown by common founder, brochures comparing Tritan and in-house products. | No actual competition between parties. | Evidence supported a reasonable inference of competition; JMOL denied. |
| Whether Eastman has prudential standing to sue under the Lanham Act | Injury to Eastman shown through customer impact and corrective advertising costs. | Lack of direct link to injury/distinctly indirect damages. | Eastman has prudential standing; argument waived but ultimately satisfied the factors. |
| Whether the evidence supports willfulness | Evidence showed Defendants knew or were indifferent to falsity. | Statements based on published scientific work and disputes among experts. | Evidence supports willfulness; not clear error in jury’s finding. |
| Whether injunctive relief is warranted and scope | Lanham Act allows injunction for irreparable harm and ongoing misrepresentation. | Disclaimers or limited relief would suffice; First Amendment concerns | Injunction granted with narrowly tailored prohibitions; disclaimers not sufficient; corrective ads not mandated. |
| Whether corrective advertising is appropriate | Eastman may require corrective messaging at defendants’ expense. | Limited or no corrective advertising necessary given other relief. | Court declined mandatory corrective advertising; existing relief deemed sufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pizza Hut, Inc. v. Papa John’s Int’l, Inc., 227 F.3d 489 (5th Cir.2000) (false advertising elements; deception and materiality presumption)
- Seven-Up Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., 86 F.3d 1379 (5th Cir.1996) (irreparable injury and injunctive analysis; advertising in same market)
- Logan v. Burgers Ozark Country Cured Hams Inc., 263 F.3d 447 (5th Cir.2001) (inference of competition from direct business interest and market ads)
- Ony, Inc. v. Cornerstone Therapeutics, Inc., 720 F.3d 490 (2d Cir.2013) (distinction between scientific publication and commercial advertising)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (S. Ct.1993) (judicial gatekeeping; reliability of scientific evidence)
- Zazu Designs v. L’Oreal, S.A., 979 F.2d 499 (7th Cir.1992) (willfulness and inference of knowledge in false advertising context)
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (U.S.2006) (four-factor test for permanent injunction)
- Westchester Media v. PRL USA Holdings, Inc., 214 F.3d 658 (5th Cir.2000) (disclaimers and First Amendment considerations in remedies)
- Better Business Bureau of Metro. Houston, Inc. v. Medical Directors, Inc., 681 F.2d 397 (5th Cir.1982) (disclaimers in false advertising remedies)
- PBM Prods., LLC v. Mead Johnson Co., 639 F.3d 111 (4th Cir.2011) (injunctions and irreparable harm in false advertising context)