![]() Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the court’s liability decision in 2016. “Rather than clarify its product advertising, SPD’s staff sought to exploit the confusion.” SPD “recognized and understood that the Weeks Estimator’s result did not align with how doctors express pregnancy duration and that this misalignment could confuse consumers,” the court wrote. Nathan denied the motion in 2014.įollowing a bench trial on liability in 2015, the court found that SPD engaged in false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act and that C&D was entitled to a permanent injunction. SPD moved to dismiss the suit on pre-emption grounds, pointing to Food and Drug Administration regulations and the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Instead, the measurement is based on the “universally accepted convention” that pregnancy begins at the time the woman’s last menstrual period starts-typically two weeks prior to ovulation. ![]() But the medical profession does not measure pregnancy by reference to the time of ovulation, C&D argued. Competitor Church & Dwight (C&D) filed a false advertising suit alleging that in addition to statements in TV and website ads such as “It’s like two tests in one!,” “Pregnant 1–2 Weeks,” “Pregnant 2–3 Weeks” or “Pregnant 3+ Weeks,” the name of the product itself-“Advanced Pregnancy Test With Weeks Estimator”-was deceptive.Īccording to C&D, the claims communicated to women that the Weeks Estimator could tell them how many weeks they had been pregnant, based on their last day of ovulation. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |