Eastman Chemical Company v. PlastiPure, Incorporat

How courts have described this case

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

• holding disputed statements made in sales brochures were actionable because “Eastman did not sue Appellants for publishing an article in a scientific journal. Rather, Eastman sought to enjoin statements made in commercial advertisements and directed at customers”
• “Application of the Lanham Act to Appellants’ promotional statements will not stifle academic freedom or intrude on First Amendment values.”
• “The First Amendment ensures a robust discourse in the pages of academic journals, but it does not immunize false or misleading commercial claims.”
• “After a thorough analysis, the Second Circuit concluded that the First Amendment places scientific debates unfolding within the scientific community beyond the reach of the Lanham Act.” (citing ONY, 720 F.3d at 496–97)
• “For it is the function of the jury as the traditional finder of the facts, and not for the Court, to weigh conflicting evidence and inferences, and determine the credibility of witnesses.” (quoting Roman v. W. Mfg., Inc., 691 F.3d 686, 692 (5th Cir. 2012

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).