PBM PRODUCTS, LLC v. Mead Johnson & Co.
639 F.3d 111
| 4th Cir. | 2011Background
- PBM filed a Lanham Act false advertising suit against Mead Johnson over a consumer mailer claiming PBM's formulas were inferior.
- Mead Johnson previously distributed similar claims and faced settlements in earlier litigation with PBM in 2001 and 2002.
- The 2008 mailer to 1.6 million consumers compared Enfamil Lipil to store brands, asserting superiority and relevance of DHA/ARA.
- District court granted PBM summary judgment on several Mead Johnson counterclaims and later issued an injunction broadening prior rulings.
- A jury verdict found Mead Johnson liable for false advertising and awarded PBM $13.5 million in damages; injunction followed.
- On appeal, Mead Johnson challenged dismissal of counterclaims, admission of expert and prior-litigation evidence, and the injunction’s breadth.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Defamation counterclaim viability | Mead Johnson contends defamation claim should survive. | PBM argues lying ads equate to false advertising; defamation barred by substantial truth. | district court’s defamation ruling affirmed |
| Lanham Act counterclaims timeliness and scope | Mead Johnson argues statutes of limitations and laches bar claims. | PBM asserts claims accrue within two years; laches not applicable to post-2007 ads. | limitations and laches properly bar pre- and post-2007 claims as appropriate |
| Admission of expert survey evidence | Mead Johnson challenges reliability and universe of survey experts. | PBM argues surveys were admissible as close approximations; weight for jury. | district court did not abuse discretion; surveys admissible |
| Admission of prior litigation evidence | Mead Johnson claims prior suits are irrelevant and prejudicial. | PBM says prior litigation demonstrates intent and pattern of conduct. | district court did not abuse discretion; evidence admissible |
| Scope and propriety of injunction | Mead Johnson argues injunction is overbroad beyond proven false statements. | PBM contends injunction necessary to prevent future misleading ads and public harm. | injunction affirmed as properly tailored to prevent continuing false advertising |
Key Cases Cited
- Scotts Co. v. United Indus. Corp., 315 F.3d 264 (4th Cir. 2002) (false advertising elements and literal vs. implied falsehoods)
- Cashmere & Camel Hair Mfrs. Inst. v. Saks Fifth Ave., 284 F.3d 302 (1st Cir. 2002) (literal vs. implied falsity; evidence of deception required)
- Novartis Consumer Health v. Johnson & Johnson-Merck Consumer Pharm. Co., 290 F.3d 578 (3d Cir. 2002) (implied misleadingness requires extrinsic evidence)
- Johnson & Johnson Merck Consumer Pharm. Co. v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., 960 F.2d 294 (2d Cir. 1992) (extrinsic evidence for implied falsehoods)
- Xoom v. Imageline, 323 F.3d 279 (4th Cir. 2003) (causation/damages linking violation to injury required)
- eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (Supreme Court 2006) (injunction standards and irreparable harm)