Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
11th Circuit Weighs in on Intersection of Lanham Act and FDCA Protein Powder Labeling Requirements
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
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- 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
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?