United Industries Corp. v. Clorox Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
140 F.3d 1175 (1998)
- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Clorox (defendant) produced and sold Combat, a bestselling roach-bait insecticide. United Industries (United) (plaintiff) manufactured and sold a new competing product, Maxattrax. United released a television commercial that directly compared Maxattrax with another roach-killing product that was generically labeled but resembled a Combat package. The commercial stated that Maxattrax killed roaches in 24 hours, but implied that the other product did not. United sought a declaratory judgment that the advertisement did not violate the Lanham Act’s false-advertising provisions. Clorox counterclaimed, alleging that the commercial did amount to false advertising. Clorox filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against the commercial. The district court denied the injunction, and Clorox appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wollman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 778,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.