Abbott Laboratories v. Mead Johnson & Company

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that what message a product name conveys, whether the message is express or implied, and whether the message is false are questions of fact
• holding that “[i]f the moving party cannot establish either [likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm], a court’s inquiry is over and the injunction must be denied”
• holding that district court erred by failing to consider whether such limited relief aimed at advertising, rather than forcing removal of product from market, would serve public interest in truthful advertising
• recognizing the “well-established presumption that injuries arising from Lanham Act violations are irreparable, even absent a showing of business loss”
• finding that plaintiff is likely to prevail on merits of false advertising claim under section 43(a) even though there was no allegation of palming off
• recognizing the “well-established presumption that injuries arising from Lanham Act violations are irreparable, even absent a showing of business loss”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).