United Industries Corp. v. Clorox Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that where literal falsity not proved, plaintiff bears burden of proving confusion among consumers due to specific product statements
• holding that movant seeking a preliminary injunction has a heavy burden
• noting that proof of actual confusion is not required under Lanham Act when the challenged advertising is literally false, nor where advertiser has acted willfully or with intent to deceive
• stating that a plaintiff must prove, inter alia, “false statement of fact by the defendant ” in order to prevail on a claim for false advertising against that defendant (emphasis added)
• applying clearly erroneous standard to review of district court’s factual determination regarding the claim conveyed by an advertisement for roach bait
• explaining that the false statement necessary to establish a Lanham Act violation includes claims that “may be literally true or ambiguous but which implicitly convey a false impression, are misleading in context, or likely to deceive consumers”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).