Or “Cher,” or even “Carrot Top.” Either The Cobalt lawyers are not up on just how cool Lindsay Lohan is, or she needs to check back into rehab for delusional thoughts.

According to the Wall Street Journal Law Blog, Ms. Lohan has sued E-trade in New York Supreme Court for misappropriation of her name and characterization for one of its “baby” commercials in which a girl baby refers to another girl baby as “that milkaholic lindsay.” According to Lohan’s attorney, such a reference clearly is an attempt to trade off the good name of Lindsay Lohan.

A couple of things her attorney might want to think about: First, all roads do not lead to your client simply because her name is Lindsay. Second, publicly giving the defendants a defense by saying the commercial is a “parody” is probably not a good way to really drive home your own case. Finally, Lindsay may have a hard time establishing that she’s known only by her first name given the fact that she’s never advertised or marketed herself solely as Lindsay, there are over 300,000 women in the country with the name Lindsay. Besides, she was never and abuser of — oh wait, she’s got one strong piece of evidence.

We’re betting this case gets the New York Heave Ho.

The Sycamore Family Bakery (“SFB”) sold his rights in the trademark GRANDMA SYCAMORE and GRANDMA SYCAMORE’S HOME MAID BREAD to Sara Lee for a bucket o’ money. Apparently, granny wasn’t ready for retirement, however.

SFB thought it would be a good idea – and not a violation of its agreement with Sara Lee (predecessor in interest to the original party) – to market a new bread under the name SYCAMORE FAMILY BAKERY, with SYCAMORE as the dominant feature of the mark. For good measure, it added the tagline “The Original Granny Bread” and incorporated a “heart” logo (hearts are also incorporated into the GRANDMA SYCAMORE bread logo sold to Sara Lee).

Sara Lee sued for trademark infringement and for creating a false impression and the court agreed. In Sara Lee Corp. v. Sycamore Family Bakery, the court ruled that he dominant feature of the mark was highly distinctive, and found SFB had clearly taken pains to highlight the SYCAMORE component of the mark while subjugating the other terms. Second, by calling attention to its origin, SFB was deliberately trying to increase the likelihood consumers would get the very false impression the Sycamore Family products were related to and under the control of the trademark now owned by Sara Lee.

In granting the preliminary injunction, the court paid particular attention to the “intentional copying” element of the likelihood of confusion test, suggesting that SFB and “intimate knowledge” of the GRANDMA SYCAMORE family of trademarks made clear it was deliberately trying to trade off the goodwill of the marks. Moreover, the court cited employee “joking about cease and desist letters” from Sara Lee as clear disregard for Sara Lee’s rights.

Practice Pointer: Selling trademarks and then attempting to re-use them is never a good idea. Though obvious enough, clients often believe they have an inalienable right to use their own names, even after entering into a deal with another party to sell them. Attorneys will want to make sure clients understand the full magnitude of what they are selling before they sell it.

Moreover, clients often believe that once a buyer is no longer a going concern, any agreement made with that buyer dissolves. This is rarely the case, since most agreements contain a provision expressly allowing the obligations under the agreement to be transferred.

The Governor of Illinois, recently signed into law a new bill that will allow entities to form a new hybrid corporation: the low-profit corporation. Commonly known as L3Cs, companies can qualify for the low-profit status if their primary objective is to achieve a socially beneficial purpose. L3Cs may greatly reduce the barriers some companies have in doing good work, because as they become more popular, states may pull back cause marketing registration requirements for those companies incorporated as low-profit.

Low-profits differ from for-profits in that they have a maximum financial return on investment. The potential rate of financial return on a standard for-profit company is generally 5% or greater, while fully tax-exempt companies are identified as having a 0% return. A low-profit company is both financial and mission-related, and strives for a financial return on investment of not more than 5%. An L3C can also receive philanthropic investment, so long as the investment provides a low rate of return. Vermont is also an L3 state, as is Montana, with legislation pending in Georgia, Michigan, and North Carolina.

If you don’t have anything nice to say, it’s not OK to lie.

Increasingly, the FTC is going digital-rambo against false advertisers, and the states are following (law)suit. Lifestyle Lift, a cosmetics company has just settled with New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo for publishing fake reviews about its cosmetic facelift process.

According to documents filed by the attorney general, Lifestyle Lift got employees to post anonymous product and service reviews on websites owned by third parties, making it appear that the reviews were made by genuine product users.

In addition to violating Section 5 of the FTC Act, which proscribes the use of deceptive advertising tactics to sell products to consumers, such conduct also violates many state laws on unfair business practices and false advertising. Cuomo, in a press conference, called the activity “cynical, manipulative, and illegal.” Cuomo would be right.

In fact, reviews are identical in every legal measure to testimonials, where the law is clear: any positive testimonial provided by consumers must be (1) truthful; (2) authorized by the manufacturer of the product; and (3) and must reflect the “typical” experience of a product user. Thus, even if a consumer is telling the truth about a product, if that truth either is not supported by scientific studies, or does not reflect the average customer experience (and therefore distorts the product’s worthiness), such a review is considered false advertising.

As many following the advertising world know, back in April, the FTC announced it will be going after companies who pay others to create viral and influential websites about the benefits of the companies’ products if information on those sites is not truthful.

PBM Products, LLC, which makes infant formula for big box stores like Kroger, WalMart, Sam’s Club, and Target, sued Mead Johnson, claiming the Enfamil maker made false statements regarding its ENFAMIL baby formula.

Mead Johnson’s new direct mail campaign states ”Enfamil LIPIL’s unique formulation is not available in any store brand.” Worse, the suit claims, defendants display a picture of a blurry rubber ducky, implying that customers who give their babies anything other than Enfamil may endanger their child’s vision and brain development. In fact, PBM claims its product is identical to the defendant’s product, according to the lawsuit, which can be downloaded here.

Mead Johnson has been entangled with PBM in the past (and lost), both in litigation, and through challenges at the National Advertising Division (“NAD”). Mead Johnson has also been before the FTC after failing to comply with the NAD decision. Paul Manning, PBM’s CEO, claims that Mead Johnson has twice before made similar false claims, and in both instances, the court banned the company from making more false advertising claims about its products and forced Mead Johnson to make corrections to its advertising.

This lawsuit seems to be ruffling feathers throughout the regulatory world. NAD, the self-regulatory agency which works with advertisers to correct advertising problems without litigation, made the following statement: “NAD is incredulous that after two compliance proceedings, with the second compliance proceeding making explicit that any noncompliant advertising would result in a referral to the appropriate government agency, that the advertiser would disseminate advertising that clearly does not comply with NAD’s decision.” Might we be headed for a three strikes law for marketing?

Practice Pointer: Marketers must be kept “in check” to make sure they are not going beyond ‘puffing’ to sell a product. Over time, a brand (and worse, a company) will lose credibility in the consumer world if no one believes the claims being made. Moreover, if companies would rather avail themselves of the less expensive and less public venue of self-regulatory proceedings believe self-regulatory decisions will be ignored, they are likely to move towards the state and federal court systems to quiet bad actors. When reviewing advertising, always request evidence for the claims being made. While lawyers cannot dictate what their clients will ultimately do, they can help guide companies toward being good corporate citizens.

One last point. This case underscores the importance of looking at an advertiser’s claims from many perspectives. PBM’s suit is focused on the claim that Mead Johnson is the only formula company with an essential formula. The FTC and NAD appear to be more focused on the issue of whether the formula – whatever it is – actually improves brain development.

Follow Tsan’s Legal Updates on or Subscribe to the Cobalt Blog

On the heels of releasing its new advertising guidelines, the FTC is wasting no time in going after individuals and companies it believes have crossed the line in their advertising practices.

Long a thorn in the side of the FTC, the weight loss market is taking the first hit. Last month, the FTC sought injunctive relief against Stella labs, Neutraceuticals International, and their principles (“Defendants”) for false advertising claims related to products it sold containing – or purporting to contain – the ingredient “Hoodia.”

Hoodia is a succulent plant found in parts of Africa, including South Africa, Botswana, and Namibia. No scientific data suggests it is an appetite supplement, but it is colloquially rumored to suppress the appetite of those who chew it. Hoodia is considered endangered by The Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and thus its import to the U.S. is heavily regulated. According to the complaint, the only country allowed to export authentic Hoodia is South Africa.

The complaint alleges the Defendants supplied their trade customers with advertising documentation stating or implying their products contained authentic Hoodia, further representing that Hoodia caused substantial weight loss, and claiming Hoodia was an effective treatment for obesity. Based upon these representations, trade customers bought the product and resold it to consumers. None of those claims, says the FTC, had been substantiated at the time the statements were made; moreover, all of the claims, now tested, are false.

Notwithstanding the FTC’s issuing of new advertising guidelines, this complaint does not invoke the higher scrutiny contemplated by the new guidelines. These claims fall squarely into the category of false statements. Unless the Defendants can prove either the truth of their representations, or that at the time the representations were made they were true, the court will make quick work of this matter.

Practice Note: We see it all the time: a client tells us its product is scientifically proven to lose weight. It may even show us the proof. When we probe further, we discover that in fact, the evidence is not about its product, but a single ingredient in the product that has been shown to help lose weight, in certain amounts, and under certain circumstances. In fact, the product has not been proven to lose weight at all. Notwithstanding third party evidence supporting weight loss for an ingredient, a company may not glom on to those results when it sells its own product.

Although we believe it’s unlikely, under the new guidelines yet to be enforced, the FTC might well be able to pursue claims against resellers of the product too, particularly if they are paid through an incentive program. While we have seen no cases on this, the rationale is to hold third parties responsible for reselling products using the same false claims without conducting sufficient due diligence to determine whether the claims are accurate. We believe if the FTC did begin to enforce against resellers, the enforcement would begin with claims the reseller clearly knew or should have known were false.

Follow Tsan’s Legal Updates on or Subscribe to the Cobalt Blog

The attached is a presentation I gave at the Food Marketing Association Legal Conference in San Antonio.

We had a good time and covered lots of topics. At the end of the day, we hit upon a few important take-away pieces of information:

1. The Social Networking/Social Media (“SM”) boom is not going away. People are going to find more ways to communicate digitally, and as the world’s psychographic changes (younger people start coming into adulthood), vendors who don’t assimilate SM into their plans are going to be left behind.
2. Currently, the legal issues are the same ones we’ve been addressing for the past few years with regard to blogging, domain hosting and user-generated content (third party trademark use; defamatory statements, hijacking of profiles, etc.).
3. In the long run, current law is going to require some tweaks, and we’re beginning to see them (be patient):
— The FTC has already come out with new “affiliate marketing/testimonial” guidelines (clear response to “fake” social networking sites).
– Likely change in SM sites will be clear disclosure of company-sponsored social sites (right now, if you get “busted” for fabricating a site, you’ve just got egg on your face). Legislation likely coming relating to origin.
– Affiliate SM sites likely to have to disclose that they have been paid for their testimonials. This is consistent with existing law regarding testimonials, but not currently enforced.
4. As technology advances, a greater burden will be placed on ISPs to protect against access by children; on the flip-side, parents are going to have to take more responsibility for what their kids are doing online.
The sky is not falling (see my last slide of “babies-booze-betamax”):
– People still (generally) make babies the same way, so online social networking will not replace direct communication.
– Young people will quickly learn how to interact, and in a difficult job market, interpersonal skills will separate out those who don’t have them.
– When new technologies are brought forth, some folks imbibe to excess. Much like the steep rise in alcoholism after prohibition, social mores and legislation over time made most folks use alcohol sensibly; the same thing is true for technology.
– Lawyers out there: relax and take a philosophical view: the fear that everything as we know it will change is unfounded (remember, we thought that the BetaMax would make real-time TV and advertising obsolete). Things will change slowly and over time, but companies will be able to get out their message.

Social Media 1

The FTC has, since the 1980’s, been actively involved in regulating endorsement and testimonial advertising that is designed to entice consumers into choosing products based upon “real life” experience (or the promise of success from a reputable source). Its guidelines help define the scope of testimonial and endorsement advertising. They point out, generally, if a single user’s experience is not typical of the average consumer, then a company may not imply that potential buyers of the product will get the same result. Now, the FTC has determined its rules about testimonials and extreme results need to be updated.

In an attempt to keep up with consumer complaints about dishonest advertising, online social networking and other internet venues that reach consumers, according to the Financial Times, the FTC is proposing legislation that could make companies liable for testimonials written by bloggers and parties who receive free samples or other incentives to try products and subsequently write good reviews.

According to Richard Cleland at the FTC, these new updated guidelines are designed to curb the use of terms like “Results Not Typical,” to justify putting up extreme and untested consumer outcomes for products and services. The new guidelines are also designed to hold companies responsible both for encouraging third party testimonial information it knows to be false, or for using spokespersons who have achieved extreme results for products, knowing the results are outrageous.

If the new guidelines are adopted, companies will not only have to consider how they use spokespersons and social networking sites, but also how they develop their “influencer” programs. Influencer programs are those programs designed specifically to attract a certain target market by paying (or giving free samples to) loyal product users in exchange for spreading the word about their personal experience through social networking (both online and offline) groups. At the very least, it’s likely that contracts between companies and third party influencers will see some changes.

Notwithstanding the spotlight that has hit the FTC proposal and the resultant uproar from many companies and marketing associations, there have been other attempts to regulate third party claims about products and services. Law professor and prolific blogger (and Twitter®er), Eric Goldman, has cited to other attempts at third party testimonial regulation.

For instance, points out Goldman, the Florida State Bar treats consumer reviews of attorneys as regulated testimonials. Goldman even remarks on his Technology and Marketing Blog that the SEC’s recent proposed hyperlinking guidelines may contravene 47 U.S.C. 230 which immunizes websites from liability for third party content.

Regardless of what happens in the short term, issues of agency will be important if the FTC truly wishes to hold companies and bloggers liable for third party content. It is impractical (and likely impossible) for companies to police what third parties write about their products. In all likelihood, therefore, the FTC would limit liability to cases where the company links to or endorses information on a third party site, or where the influencer is retained without a contract provision about outlandish statements.

The biggest challenge, depending on how the guidelines are written, may ultimately be to advertisers who use spokespersons with unusual outcomes, who have until this point, gotten by with a disclaimer of “Results Not Typical,” or “Your Results May Vary.” The long running commercials involving Jared, who claims to have lost hundreds of pounds by eating Subway sandwiches, may have seen their last days.

Practice Note: Despite the current feeling about the proposed guideline changes, the sky is not falling. Advertisers have weathered advertising regulation in the past, and at the end of the day, we still manage to get a fair number of commercials (and testimonials) out there. In truth, and regardless of whether there will ever be another Jared to enable Subway to point to a pattern of weight loss, he won’t go away, and the FTC is not going to find liability with companies or bloggers that are generally engaged in appropriate disclosure practice.

The new logo (shown above next to the old one) is representative of the phone company’s radically new “so very Verizon” campaign.

Further images of the clever campaign are available here.

No word yet on whether the old CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? tagline will be replaced by the VERY awesome: IS IT HOT IN HERE?

Practice Notes: Rebranding efforts can be effective for companies to update their image and gain new consumers (although they can sometimes backfire, as Tropicana learned recently). Clients should involve their trademark counsel in the rebranding and marketing efforts, so as to assess potential risks (such as likelihood of confusion with existing marks, say, in this case, the SKYPE logo) and protect the new marks, including new trade dress, if applicable.

Tsan’s Comment: Naturally, rebranding efforts that take place on April Fool’s Day and are gone the next day should be suspect (unless you’re introducing New Coke).

The estate of rock legend Jimi Hendrix won a trademark infringement lawsuit against a Seattle, Washington-based businessman who used the star’s name and image to promote his brand of vodka. In Experience Hendrix LLC et al v. Electric Hendrix LLC et al, Case No. 2:07-cv-00338-TSZ (W.D. Wash. 2009). a U.S. District Court judge ruled HENDRIX ELECTRIC VODKA infringes on the estate’s trademarks.

Experience Hendrix and Authentic Hendrix, which owns and licenses Hendrix’s likeness and music won a $3.2 million judgment against Craig Dieffenbach and his Electric Hendrix Spirits. Electric Hendrix Spirits had described the liquor as inspired “by the innovative spirit of legendary musician Jimi Hendrix.”

A legal purple haze has surrounded the deceased guitarist for years. In this case, Hendrix’s sister Janie Hendrix, CEO of Experience Hendrix LLC, alleged trademark infringement and false advertising for its “tasteless promotion” of Hendrix Electric Vodka, sold in purple-tinted bottle. Plaintiffs further alleged that Hendrix’s name and likeness were used without permission. Janie Hendrix, however, isn’t the only Hendrix in this fight. Leon Hendrix, Jimi’s biological brother, who has been engaged in a long-running legal dispute with Janie Hendrix over Jimi’s assets, is a partner in defendants’ venture. Indeed, Mr. Dieffenbach, has helped Leon Hendrix finance his court fight over Jimi’s estate. Here’s a story about the lawsuit and the Hendrix family’s squabbles over who has the right to make money off the late rock star.

In its February 12, 2009 order, the District Court ordered the company to cease using Hendrix products for commercial purposes and ordered the vodka and any related advertising be withdrawn. And the beat goes on . . . .

Don’t forget to check the fine print (with your attorney). If you don’t want to view the entire episode, read below:

Michael Scott wants to sell paper. Borrowing an idea from the Roald Dahl book, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, he decides to put 5 Golden Tickets in pallets of paper to be randomly shipped to existing clients. The tickets allow a company getting the ticket to receive 10% off its paper order. Problem is, Michael decides to seed them himself and all the tickets end up with the same company. Worse, there are no restrictions: no limit to the number of tickets one company can have; no time restrictions; no restriction on the number of orders to which the ticket applies; no limitation on minimum or maximum orders. There go the Dunder-Mifflin profits (and Jim’s commission).

Like a Curious George book, it all works out in the end, but in difficult economic times, clients often make rookie errors when rolling out a promotion that can be easily dispensed with by first “role playing” the promotion, and then, spending a little time with an attorney, who may know about various state and local laws that could affect the outcome. At a minimum, the client should ask itself these questions before proceeding:

– Does this promotion attract the right clientele?
– If I where the target, would I care?
– Is it impossible to “game” the promotion (take advantage of a loophole)?
– Will this have an overall positive impact on the bottom line?

If a client can answer the foregoing questions affirmatively, it’s taken the first step to a promising promotion.

Plastwood SRL v. Rose Art Industries (Case No. c07-0458LJR, W.D. Wash. Dec. 5, 2008).

District Court Judge James Robart granted the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Rose Art, finding that its packaging did not contain literally false statements.

At issue in this case was Rose Art’s line of MAGNEXT toys, plastic and magnetic construction sets that compete directly with Plaintiff Plastwood’s SUPERMAG construction sets. In its complaint, Plaintiff alleged false advertising under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act for claims made on the packaging. In particular, Plaintiff contended that while Defendant’s packaging makes the claim that “500 designs” can be made from the contents in the box, many of the structures described collapse under their own weight and/or cannot be made by kids.

During discovery, Defendant provided an adult expert who was able to construct all of the structures claimed on the box. Plaintiff complained that even if the expert was able to construct each of the structures, the toy was intended for children, not expert toy builders. Accordingly, the advertising was literally false as to its intended audience. In dismissing Plaintiff’s contention, the court noted that Defendant’s box had an age range of 3 to 100. Thus the court, while acknowledging that the question of whether a statement is false is a question of fact to be decided by a jury, found that Plaintiff had failed to “establish any genuine issue of material fact in support of its assertion that the structures cannot be built,” and further noted that Plaintiff provided no evidence that consumers were actually misled. According to the decision, in fact Plaintiff did show that at least three of the structures could not be built and that many more could be built, but not in the manner shown by the instructions. Nevertheless, the court found that there was no material issue of fact with regard to the truth of Defedant’s statement and granted its motion.

Comment: The decision is an interesting one. Plaintiff brought its case on a theory literal falsity of Defendant’s statements. Under the Lanham Act, if a statement is “literally false,” then a Plaintiff does not have to provide evidence that consumers were actually deceived; rather, if a statement is found to be literally false, the court must assume consumers were misled (Rosco, Inc. v. Saks Fifth Ave., 284 F.3d 302, 311 (1st Cir. 2002) ). Thus, it seems in part, the court may have been using the test for whether a statement, though true, is false by necessary implication, to find for Defendant.

Had the Plaintiff alleged implied false advertising or, in the alternative, “false by necessary implication” (literally true, but misleading), it would have had to provide evidence that consumers were misled. On the other hand, by bringing such a claim, Plaintiff could have made a credible showing that the box indication of “ages 3-100” does not really reflect the toy’s intended audience. Evidence of where the toy was sold (and who bought the toy) could have narrowed the range and survey evidence might have shown that in fact, parents who bought the toy assumed the product designs could be constructed by their child.

Practice Pointer: Appropriate disclaimers should be included on a box (or, if online, at the point of purchase) to notify the purchaser of product limitations. In this case, a claim that the box’s contents make 500 different structures might have been followed by a simple statement that “expert skill may be required to make some structures.” Such a statement would have been unlikely to change the buying habits of a parent interested in the toy, and would likely have alleviated the need to defend against the claim brought.

Winter 2009. Reebok, in conjunction with the National Hockey League, is hoping consumer recognition of its brand will translate to money in the bank. Reebok will run a “Find the Lost Logo” promotion during the NHL Winter Classic, where it will ask fans to find the hockey player who is not displaying the Reebok logo on his jersey.

Entrants can play by watching the Classic on television and submitting their answer via text message or online; or attendees of the game can submit their answers via text message. All answers submitted will have an opportunity to win four tickets to the Stanley Cup final game. The winner will be announced at the 3rd period.

Practice Pointers:

1. The law is still not clear regarding whether a proper alternate method of entry for a text-messaging sweepstakes can be an online entry. Currently, the matter is being litigated in California courts.
2. This sort of promotion is categorized as a “treasure hunt” and is generally considered a sweepstakes, not a contest.

On December 5, 2008, The Children’s Advertising Review Unit (”CARU,”) a division of the Better Business Bureau, issue a press release admonishing advertisers to make clear disclosure about the need for adult supervision with certain toys, particularly when those toys are advertised directly to children.

CARU highlighted a new product from Wham-O, called the Slip ‘N’ Slide Mega Shark, a water toy for children’s play. The toy was advertised on Nickelodeon during a time when children are the primary viewing audience.

CARU questioned whether a small graphic disclosure on the screen was sufficient to inform children that no one over 5’ tall or weighing over 110 pounds should use the toy. Moreover, CARU expressed concern that because the disclosure was not properly made, the toy might be misused by children.

The lack of adequate disclosure was only one of the concerns CARU expressed. CARU also worried that the commercial should have shown adequate adult supervision, noting there was only a brief showing of a woman watching the children play on the slide. Overall, CARU found, the commercial did not meet CARU’s voluntary requirements.

Case law supports CARU’s contention that more precautions should be taken. In particular, with water sliding devices, the weight and height requirement is important, as spinal cord injuries, rendering users unable to walk, have been reported, and numerous law suits have dealt with this issue.

Practice Note: In an era of childhood obesity, it is not unusual for children to weight over 110 pounds. Clients CARU is self-regulatory and speaks softly, but carries a big stick. In cases where an advertiser refuses to alter its ad campaign, CARU can (and will) refer matters directly to the Federal Trade Commission for prosecution. Moreover, CARU can alert the CPSC if it believes the product or its advertising present a problem.

In Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 523 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. Cal. 2008), a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (“Court” or “Court of Appeals”), in a published opinion, reversed the judgment of the District Court, and found, under California law, Plaintiffs could proceed with their case against Gerber Products Company (“Gerber”). The issue? Whether Plaintiffs (a certified class of parents) had alleged a valid legal claim that a Gerber fruit juice product, developed for toddlers, was deceptively marketed.

Gerber, “one of the most trusted names in baby food and baby care,” marketed its Fruit Juice Snacks product (“Snacks”) in a package featuring images of fruit such as oranges, peaches, strawberries and cherries. The side panel of the packaging described the product as made “with real fruit juice and other all natural ingredients.” In addition, another side panel contained a statement announcing Snacks was, “one of a variety of nutritious Gerber Graduates foods and juices.”

Thinking they purchased healthy snacks for their kids, Plaintiffs sued Gerber under, among other things, California state tort law for misrepresentation and breach of warranty, as well as claims under California’s Unfair Competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.) and California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civil Code § 1750, et seq.). Plaintiffs’ deception claims were based, in part, upon the following allegations: (1) The product contained no fruit juice from any of the fruits pictured on the packaging; (2) The only juice contained in the product was white grape juice from concentrate; and (3) The two most prominent ingredients in the product were corn syrup and sugar.

Gerber filed a motion to dismiss and the District Court granted Gerber’s motion fining the package statements were not likely to deceive a reasonable consumer. The Court of Appeals disagreed. In reversing the District Court’s order, the Court recognized that “whether a business practice is deceptive will usually be a question of fact not appropriate for decision on demurrer.” It further found a number of Gerber’s packaging features could likely deceive a reasonable consumer. “The product is called ‘fruit juice snacks’ and the packaging pictures a number of different fruits, potentially suggesting (falsely) that those fruits are contained in the product,” stated Judge Pregerson in the Opinion of the Court. Further, the Court found the statement that the product “was made with ‘fruit juice and other all natural ingredients’ could easily be interpreted by consumers as a claim that all ingredients in the product were natural, which appears to be false.” Disagreeing with the District Court, the Court found, “reasonable consumers should [not] be expected to look beyond misleading representations on the front of the box to discover the truth from the ingredient list in small print on the side of the box.”

Finally, in a statement sure to make consumer products manufacturer’s take note (especially those marketing products for infant or toddler use), the Court added, “We do not . . . think that a busy parent walking through the aisles of a grocery store should expect to verify that the representations on the front of the box are confirmed in the ingredient list. Instead reasonable consumers expect that the ingredient list contains more detailed information about the product that confirms other representations on the packaging. We do not think the FDA requires an ingredient list so that manufacturers can mislead consumers and then rely on the ingredient list to correct those misrepresentations and provide a shield for liability for the deception.”

Practice Note: In reading the full opinion, this commentator is of the opinion the Court of Appeals, while correct on the application of the law, held Defendant Gerber to a higher standard than that of an ordinary manufacturer of consumer products. Gerber, in its own words, is “one of the most trusted names in baby food and baby care.” The Court likely took note of this when crafting its opinion. One wonders if the same standard would have been applied to a beer manufacturer or a coffee beverage manufacturer, i.e. products marketed to and primarily intended for adults.

The Federal Trade Commission yesterday announced that it has ordered Membership Services Direct, Inc. (also known by other names) to pay $28.2 million to the FTC. The amount represents the net profits made by the company after engaging in a telemarketing scheme designed to bilk consumers of their money. Dubbed the Wal-Mart Shopping Spree Scam, the order also bars several of the company’s principles from engaging in deceptive practices in the future.

The original complaint, filed in federal court by the FTC in 2007, alleged that MSD made cold calls to consumers, falsely promising them shopping sprees at retail department stores like Wal-Mart and Macy’s. They also promised discount coupons, gas vouchers, and free movie tickets, if consumers joined a discount club. The ruse was designed to get unsuspecting customers to reveal their private bank account information, which MSD later used to directly debit the consumers accounts.

Practice Note: Consumers should be advised never to release their social security number or their bank account information over the phone. No reputable organization will ever ask for that information from a consumer. The FTC has a special mailing address for consumers to use if they have had money debited from their account by MSD or any of the other defendants in this Wal-Mart case. Consumers can send a letter to Faye Chen Barnouw or Jennifer Brennan, 10677 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700, Los Angeles, CA 90024. Consumers should identify which entity took the money, and supply supporting documentation.

Blockbuster may not be able to rely on the what I learned in Kindergarten defense when it answers charges it illegally shared a plaintiff’s movie preferences with third parties. In a suit filed in Texas earlier this month, Cathryn Harris sued Blockbuster for sharing her rental history on Facebook.

The suit, which is currently seeking class action status, claims Blockbuster’s actions of feeding renters video choices to a news feed violate the Videotape Privacy Protection Act, (“VPPA”) which states in relevant part that a video tape service provider is liable under the VPPA if that provider knowingly discloses personally identifiable information without the renter’s “informed, written consent.” Harris contends the online “opt out” options she was given did not constitute her informed written consent as intended by the VPPA.

The sharing comes as a result of Blockbuster’s participation in the Beacon advertising program, which has received considerable attention and criticism from consumer activist groups and corporations over the past 18 months. Beacon is a form of “social advertising” that allows Facebook friends to see your purchases (as well as other transactions you make) through news feeds. After considerable controversy, Facebook changed the “opt out” provision to an “opt in” provision, so that users would not inadvertently share their personal information simply by accepting the use agreement. Even so, last year, Coca-Cola announced it would not be participating in the program, as did Overstock.com and several other companies, citing privacy concerns. For instance, research showed that participating companies were sending information to Facebook even for buyers who were not Facebook members. Although Facebook claims it deletes such information if and when it is received, many partner sites determined the program contained too many privacy problems for them to feel comfortable participating.

The VPPA was enacted in 1987. It is rarely cited and was clearly not created with the sort of digital transmission of private information in mind that happens today. In fact, the VPPA was enacted after Robert Bork’s video rental history was published during his Supreme Court nomination hearings.

Practice Note: Privacy policies are tricky things. Clients should be advised to create policies that they can follow. Any updates to a privacy policy, particularly ones that will change the way a user’s information is shared, should be highlighted in bold.

Last week, a district court in Maryland ruled that Tyson was not immune from false advertising liability based upon a United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) label ruling.

The flap over advertising came when Plaintiff competitors Perdue Farms and Sanderson Farms, alleged that Tyson had been running a series of consumer ads that contained the message “Raised without Antibiotics,” what Plaintiffs called an unqualified Raised without Antibiotics claim (“RWA” claim). Plaintiffs further alleged defendant was running ads with a similar, but qualified RWA claim, namely, “aised Without Antibiotics that Impact Antibiotic Resistance in Humans.” Plaintiffs complaint alleged the unqualified RWA claim was literally false on its face, and the qualified RWA claim was misleading and therefore false by implication. In fact, Plaintiffs claimed, the defendant’s chicken feed contained inophores which are in fact, antibiotics.

By way of background, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (“FSIS”) of the USDA originally approved the unqualified RWA claim, but quickly revoked the approval and informed defendant it could no longer use the unqualified RWA claim on its label. It was silent as to advertising, since the FSIS has no jurisdiction outside of labeling. It later approved defendants qualified RWA claim. In its moving papers, defendant crowed that because the statements were approved for use on defendant’s chicken labels, the pecking order had already been established: plaintiffs Lanham Act claims must be dismissed on the ground that the labels’ language was already approved by the USDA.

In denying defendant’s motion to dismiss on the unqualified RWA claim, the court held that defendant could not rely on a former position held by the USDA “to defend itself against allegations that it continues to run false and misleading advertisements carrying the ‘Raised Without Antibiotics’ language.” Regarding the qualified RWA claim, the court noted that both sides were winging it on cited case law, because it could find no cases that involved “whether a USDA-approved label insulates a company from allegedly false non-label advertising under the Lanham Act.” The court noted that while the USDA may have jurisdiction over chicken labels, it does not have congressional authority to regulate advertising. Accordingly, “a label approved by the USDA may nonetheless be false or misleading in other contexts.” Looks like defendant doesn’t have a leg (or thigh) to stand on.

Increasingly, teenage celebrities are being used by marketing companies to gain a competitive edge in the increasingly growing teen market share. USA Today Online reported today that several large retailers and merchandisers have signed teenage singers and actors to hawk their wares, including Fergie, who was recently retained to give the MAC Cosmetics “Viva Glam” line a boost, the 15 year old Sprouse twins from The Suite Life with Zach and Cody, and basketball’s Stephon Marbury.

Clearly, using these Hollywood “role models” is a strategy that works. The Zandi Group, a marketing research firm, indicates that teenage spokespersons are perfect for clothing and product lines directed at teens because teens already try to emulate celebrity style. Legally, however, using underage spokespersons to target minors can be tricky. While going after teenage dollars is relatively fair game, many young stars attract even younger consumers, including ‘tweens (those under 13), which can lead to problems with the major television networks, with self-regulatory agencies, such as CARU, and in some cases, with the FTC with parents. Many major networks have guidelines consistent with those at CARU that do not allow certain celebrity advertising during times when children under 13 are likely to be looking at television. The practice of Host Selling (airing commercials featuring a teen celebrity at the same time as the teen’s program is scheduled) is not allowed by most networks, and CARU’s self-regulatory guidelines also proscribe the message that buying a certain product will make a kid more popular among his friends or smarter in class.

Practice Pointer: Attorneys should remind their clients that while many teens have their own money, in many cases, that money comes from their parents, who frown upon hard-sell tactics. In particular, parents do not like to be nagged about the purchase of a product they feel is too expensive, compromises their child’s integrity, or is sexually provocative. Generally speaking, clients should use common sense about the type of promotion they engage teenagers to endorse.

Electrolux turned the tables on former distributor-turned-competitor Imig, Inc., which filed a complaint against the famous vacuum and home appliance company, for interfering with relationships with perspective customers. Electrolux filed several counterclaims, alleging that Imig copied Electrolux’s protected trade dress, copyright protected user manuals, and that Imig made false claims in its advertising.

The district court dismissed all of Imig’s claims on summary judgment, and found for Electrolux on copyright infringement and false advertising. The court found that Imig had copied the user manuals in violation of U.S. Copyright law. From a false advertising perspective, the court found that specific numerically based claims about the Imig vacuum’s superiority were false on their face, because the products did not actually meet those objective standards. The remaining counterclaims proceeded to trial. On March 31, 2008, the court issued its finding that Electrolux had not met its burden of establishing a protectable trade dress in its vacuum and therefore, did not find Imig liable.

The facts show that Imig, afraid that it would lose its distributorship of the Electrolux SANITAIRE brand, developed its PERFECT brand vacuum as a replacement. Discovery produced evidence of copying: in creating the PERFECT design, Imig referred its Chinese manufacturer to the specifications of the SANITAIRE line. It was also revealed that Imig’s patent attorney sent a letter to a patent research company noting his clients’ desire “to make a private label vacuum cleaner that is virtually identical in appearance” to defendant’s vacuum. The court also noted numerous visual similarities between the SANITAIRE vacuum and the PERFECT vacuum.

Notwithstanding Imid’s clear intent to copy, the court did not find liability. The court noted that Electrolux had not met its burden of establishing trade dress infringement. In order to establish trade dress infringement, the court wrote, a company must show that the product design is distinctive and that consumers are likely to be confused by seeing the distinctive trade dress on another product. The court held that the elements claimed by Electrolux were functional in nature, and that the company had not proved otherwise, despite Electrolux’s survey evidence showing consumers recognized the various elements of the vacuum as being uniquely from the SANITAIRE brand. The court also determined that secondary meaning had not been established, even though the product had been in use for several years. Addressing the issue of confusion, the court, citing Cadbury Beverages, Inc. v. Cott Corp. determined that Eletrolux had to show a “probability – not merely a ‘possibility’ – of confusion,” a burden that it also did not meet. Even with the victory on the copyright and false advertising claims, we’re guessing Electrolux thinks the decision, well, sucks.

Practice Note: One method of distinguishing trade dress elements is to use “look for” advertising tactics in marketing the products. If a product contains non-functional elements that truly distinguish the product, a company can generate recognition around those features by directing clients to look for them when they make a purchase. Such use may be more persuasive than survey evidence in making clear to both customers and competitors what elements of a design are trade dress.