From our private database of 36,900+ case briefs...
American Home Products Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
577 F.2d 160 (1978)
American Home Products Corp. (American) (plaintiff) sold an aspirin-based analgesic called Anacin. Johnson & Johnson (Johnson) (defendant) sold Tylenol, an acetaminophen-based analgesic. American ran advertisements favorably comparing Anacin to Tylenol. After Johnson complained that the advertisements were false, American sought a declaratory judgment that the advertisements were not false as well as an injunction prohibiting Johnson from interfering with the advertisements. Johnson counterclaimed pursuant to § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, alleging that the advertisements were false. American responded that the advertisements were unambiguous and true and thus the district court should not resort to survey data to determine how consumers understood them. Rather, American argued, as a matter of law, the advertisements did not violate the act. After a trial, the district court determined that the advertisements were ambiguous and that survey data proved that consumers understood them to claim that Anacin (1) was a better pain reliever than Tylenol generally, (2) was the better pain reliever because it could reduce inflammation, and (3) reduced inflammation caused by certain specified conditions. However, the district court rejected Johnson’s allegation that consumers understood the advertisements to claim Anacin relieved pain faster than Tylenol or that Anacin did not harm the stomach. Based on its review of the medical evidence, the district court concluded that at least the advertisements’ first two claims were false. Because the three claims were inseparable, the district court enjoined American from running advertisements making these claims. American appealed, among other things, the district court’s ruling that the advertisements were false. Johnson appealed the district court’s finding that the advertisements did not claim that Anacin worked faster than Tylenol and that it did not harm the stomach.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Oakes, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 629,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 629,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 36,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.