Court declines to grant preliminary injunction

Schering-Plough Healthcare Products, Inc. v. Neutrogena Corporation, Civ. No.09-268-SLR, April 8, 2010.

Robinson, J.  Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.

Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction in this case of competing claims of false advertising and violations under DPTA.  Both parties are manufacturers of sunscreen products.  Plaintiff seeks to enjoin defendant's use of the Helioplex® illustration in its advertising on the grounds that it conveys the message that sunscreen products without Neutrogena's Helioplex® do not provide protection from the sun's UVA rays.  The Court finds that while a fact-finder could ultimately conclude that the illustration is misleading, the message conveyed is not unambiguous, and injunctive relief is not warranted.  Plaintiff also seeks to enjoin defendant's use of the bar graph, which it contends conveys the false implication that the Coppertone Sport® line of sunscreen products only provides half the sunburn protection when compared to Neutrogena's Ultimate Sport® line of sunscreen products.  The parties have presented conflicting evidence, presented by equally credible experts, regarding what information the "SPF" measurement imparts to consumers.  Thus, the Court finds no literal falsehood in defendant's representation of approximately 100% more combined UVNSPF protection for its Neutrogena Sport® line.

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://depatentlaw.morrisjames.com/admin/trackback/197262
Comments (0) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
Post A Comment / Question Use this form to add a comment to this entry.







Remember personal info?
Send To A Friend Use this form to send this entry to a friend via email.