Johnson & Johnson v. Carter-Wallace, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
631 F.2d 186 (1980)
- Written by Tom Syverson, JD
Facts
Johnson & Johnson (J&J) (plaintiff) sold baby oil and baby lotion. Some consumers used baby oil and baby lotion for shaving, either as aftershave moisturizer or as a shaving cream replacement. Carter-Wallace, Inc. (Carter) (defendant) sold NAIR, a hair-removal lotion. In 1977, Carter added baby oil to NAIR. NAIR packaging and advertisements emphasized that NAIR contained baby oil. Subsequently, Carter’s share of the hair-removal product market rose. Meanwhile, J&J’s baby-oil sales were decreasing. J&J sued Carter, alleging false advertising respecting Carter’s claims about baby oil. J&J sought only injunctive relief. J&J argued that Carter’s advertisements falsely misled consumers to believe that NAIR with baby oil was an equivalent skin moisturizer to baby oil and baby lotion. At trial, Carter presented evidence of consumers who believed, in response to Carter’s advertisements and packaging, that baby oil or lotion was not necessary if one used NAIR. After J&J’s presented evidence, Carter moved to dismiss the suit. The district court granted Carter’s motion on the ground that J&J failed to demonstrate damages. The district court’s decision did not reach the issue of falsity. J&J appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Mansfield, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.