Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Intellectual Property StrategistFeaturesIntellectual PropertyUnited States Supreme Court

11th Circuit Weighs in on Intersection of Lanham Act and FDCA Protein Powder Labeling Requirements

By Kyle-Beth Hilfer
February 01, 2019

A battle between two dietary supplement manufacturers has revived interested in the intersection between the Lanham Act and federal labeling regulations. The issue: can an advertiser challenge a competitor's product label for false advertising under the Lanham Act if it complies with applicable federal regulations? The Supreme Court of the United States answered the question affirmatively in 2014 with regard to food products, and now the 11th Circuit has weighed in with regard to dietary supplements. In Hi-Tech Pharms, Inc. v HBA Intl's Corp, 2018 WL 6314282, No. 17-13884 (11th Cir. Dec 4, 2018), the Circuit Court ruled that a Lanham Act claim for unfair or deceptive advertising could proceed even if a supplement's label had complied with the requirements of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).

Background

The FDCA does not allow a private litigant to pursue action for misbranding of a dietary supplement. Accordingly, brands frustrated by a competitor's label claims might seek recourse for false advertising through the Lanham Act's Section 43 (a). The Lanham Act has trademark provisions to stave off unfair competition, but it also prohibits false advertising and authorizes private suit against those who use a false or misleading description or representation of the "nature, characteristics, [or] qualities" of their goods. The statute is designed to protect and compensate a private party for the damages that flow from such deceptive statements. The intersection between the FDCA and 43(a) claims has led to litigation. If a label meets all federal compliance requirements, could there still be liability under the Lanham Act?

After a battle in the 9th Circuit, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) weighed in on this question with regard to juice beverages in POM Wonderful LLC v Coca-Cola Co., 573 U. S. ____ (2014). In its Lanham Act challenge, POM alleged that Coke's juice product's name, label, marketing, and advertising misled consumers into thinking the product was mostly a pomegranate and blueberry juice when it in fact was mostly apple and grape juice. Coke countered that its product met FDCA requirements for its juice name and label, and that the FDCA's regulations preclude any Lanham Act claim. SCOTUS reversed the 9th Circuit decision and held that POM's Lanham Act claim against Coca Cola was not precluded.

The Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the case, instead remanding it back to the Ninth Circuit. At the same time, the court's opinion makes it clear that there can be Lanham Act liability for food and beverage labeling practices that "mislead and trick consumers, all to the injury of competitors." (For a more detailed discussion of the Supreme Court's POM Wonderful decision, see this author's previous article in the August 2014 issue of The Intellectual Property Strategist.)

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Bonus Content: How Emerging Technologies Are Impacting IP: A Chat With Legalweek Speaker Ryan Phelan Image

In advance of Legalweek '25, a Q&A with conference speaker Ryan Phelan, a partner at Marshall, Gerstein & Borun and founder and moderator of legal blog PatentNext, to discuss how courts and jurisdictions are handling novel technologies, the copyrightability of AI-assisted art, and more.

Overview of Regulatory Guidance Governing the Use of AI Systems In the Workplace Image

Businesses have long embraced the use of computer technology in the workplace as a means of improving efficiency and productivity of their operations. In recent years, businesses have incorporated artificial intelligence and other automated and algorithmic technologies into their computer systems. This article provides an overview of the federal regulatory guidance and the state and local rules in place so far and suggests ways in which employers may wish to address these developments with policies and practices to reduce legal risk.

Is Google Search Dead? How AI Is Reshaping Search and SEO Image

This two-part article dives into the massive shifts AI is bringing to Google Search and SEO and why traditional searches are no longer part of the solution for marketers. It’s not theoretical, it’s happening, and firms that adapt will come out ahead.

While Federal Legislation Flounders, State Privacy Laws for Children and Teens Gain Momentum Image

For decades, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act has been the only law to expressly address privacy for minors’ information other than student data. In the absence of more robust federal requirements, states are stepping in to regulate not only the processing of all minors’ data, but also online platforms used by teens and children.

Revolutionizing Workplace Design: A Perspective from Gray Reed Image

In an era where the workplace is constantly evolving, law firms face unique challenges and opportunities in facilities management, real estate, and design. Across the industry, firms are reevaluating their office spaces to adapt to hybrid work models, prioritize collaboration, and enhance employee experience. Trends such as flexible seating, technology-driven planning, and the creation of multifunctional spaces are shaping the future of law firm offices.