S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Clorox Co. - 241 F.3d 232 (2d Cir. 2001)

Rule:

Where the advertising claim is shown to be literally false, the court may enjoin the use of the claim without reference to the advertisement's impact on the buying public. Additionally, a plaintiff must show that it will suffer irreparable harm absent the injunction. Under 15 U.S.C.S. § 1125(a), however, the court will presume irreparable harm where plaintiff demonstrates a likelihood of success in showing literally false defendant's comparative advertisement which mentions plaintiff's product by name.

Facts:

Plaintiff S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. brought an action against defendant Clorox Co. alleging false advertising under 15 U.S.C.S. § 1125(a), following defendant's commercial and print advertisement depicting an allegedly false portrayal of plaintiff's product. The district court issued a permanent injunction to plaintiff, holding that defendant's advertisement was literally false under 15 U.S.C.S. § 1125(a), and that plaintiff showed irreparable harm sufficient to support an injunction. Defendant appealed, claiming that the district court erred in finding that its advertisement was literally false, and that the injunction was not specific or definite enough.

Issue:

Was the defendant’s advertisement literally false under 15 U.S.C.S. § 1125(a), thereby warranting the grant of injunction in favor of plaintiff? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed, holding that the district court properly found defendant's advertisement to be literally false under 15 U.S.C.S. § 1125(a) based on the evidence presented at the trial. Moreover, the court held that the permanent injunction was specific and definite enough to apprise those within its scope of the conduct that was being proscribed.