Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co.

POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 21, 2014, Argued; June 12, 2014, Decided

No. 12-761

Opinion

 [*105]  [1879]  [**2233]   Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court.

POM Wonderful LLC makes and sells pomegranate juice products, including a pomegranate-blueberry juice blend. App. 23a. One of POM’s competitors is The Coca-Cola Company. Coca-Cola’s Minute Maid Division makes a juice blend sold with a label that, in describing the contents, displays the words “pomegranate blueberry” with far more prominence than other words on the label that show the juice to be a blend of five juices. In truth, the Coca-Cola product contains but 0.3% pomegranate juice and 0.2% blueberry juice.

 [*106]  Alleging that the use of that label is deceptive and misleading, POM sued Coca-Cola under §43 of the Lanham Act. 60 Stat. 441, as amended, 15 U. S. C. §1125. That provision allows one competitor to sue another if it alleges unfair competition arising from false or misleading product descriptions. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that, in the realm of labeling for food and beverages, a Lanham Act claim  [****8] like POM’s is precluded by a second federal statute. The second statute is the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), which forbids the misbranding of food, including by means of false or misleading labeling. §§301, 403, 52 Stat. 1042, 1047, as amended, 21 U. S. C. §§331, 343.

 [***147]  [1880]  The ruling that POM’s Lanham Act cause of action is precluded by the FDCA was incorrect. There is no statutory text or established interpretive principle to support the contention that the FDCA precludes Lanham Act suits like the one brought by POM in this case. Nothing in the text, history, or structure of the FDCA or the Lanham Act shows the congressional purpose or design to forbid these suits. Quite to the contrary, the FDCA and the Lanham Act complement each other in the federal regulation of misleading food and beverage labels. Competitors, in their own interest, may bring Lanham Act claims like POM’s that challenge food and beverage labels that are regulated by the FDCA.

This case concerns the intersection and complementarity of these two federal laws. A proper beginning point is a description of the statutes.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

573 U.S. 102 *; 134 S. Ct. 2228 **; 189 L. Ed. 2d 141 ***; 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4165 ****; 110 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1877; 82 U.S.L.W. 4475; 2014-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) P78,800; 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 846; 2014 WL 2608859

POM WONDERFUL LLC, Petitioner v. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY

Notice: The LEXIS pagination of this document is subject to change pending release of the final published version.

Prior History:  [****1] ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 679 F.3d 1170, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9921 (9th Cir. Cal., 2012)

Disposition: Reversed and remanded.

CORE TERMS

labeling, Lanham Act, regulations, juice, food and beverage, pre-emption, competitors, federal statute, misleading, blend, suits, pomegranate, unfair competition, consumers, preclusion, food, cause of action, misbranding, provisions, blueberry, commerce, Appeals, terms, federal law, state law, POM’s Lanham Act, manufacturers, complement, rulemaking, argues

Antitrust & Trade Law, Consumer Protection, False Advertising, Lanham Act, Business & Corporate Compliance, Governments, Agriculture & Food, Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act, Governments, Legislation, Statutory Remedies & Rights, Interpretation