AD-ttorneys@law

by BakerHostetler
Contact

In This Issue:

  • Abbott’s Baby Formula Advertising Challenged by Mead Johnson
  • Natural Supplement Maker Sues Rival Under Lanham Act
  • Decades-long Milk War Froths On
  • Court Continues Hold on Patent Service’s Activities, Assets
  • Blog of Note: UGC Uncertainty Consternation Continues
Abbott’s Baby Formula Advertising Challenged by Mead Johnson

Advanced ingredient requires specific “not from mom” label

Formula Forward

Abbott Nutrition did something unique.

It added a new ingredient to its Similac Pro-Advance and Pro-Sensitive infant formulas that, until now, had only been available in human breast milk: 2’-fucosyllactose human milk oligosaccharide, or 2’-FL HMO. This particular carbohydrate, the most abundant chemical of its kind in the milk of most American mothers, has been linked to demonstrated benefits for babies, including boosts to their immune system.

It’s the Source

When Mead Johnson Nutrition challenged Abbott’s advertising before the National Advertising Division (NAD), it didn’t dispute the nature of the new ingredient, or the claims that have been made about its benefits. Instead, it challenged the use of the words “human milk” in advertising the product.

Abbott had used several tag lines with the phrase, including “COMING SOON SIMILAC WITH HUMAN MILK OLIGOSACCHARIDE” and “Closest to breast milk . . . Unlike other formulas, we have 2’-FL HMO, an immune-nourishing prebiotic that circulates throughout the body.” NAD also reviewed whether the ingredient was “derived from human milk or that only Abbott products provide immune nourishing benefits.”

The Decision

In its decision, NAD dispensed of the notion that Abbott was making a boast about Similac’s superiority. The company, NAD maintained, was merely advertising its exclusive use of the ingredient. The product benefits were also not in dispute.

On the central concern regarding the human milk claims, NAD recommended that Abbott add “not from human milk” in a conspicuous fashion to ensure the advertising did not play on the preference of new parents for products derived from human milk. The division also recommended that existing advertising be adjusted to make the same notice conspicuous.

The Takeaway

Abbott Nutrition agreed with the requested changes, and promised to comply fully with NAD’s decision.

Natural Supplement Maker Sues Rival Under Lanham Act

Alleges advertising pumps up synthetic steroid health claims

Too Good …

SARMs (selective androgen receptor modulators) are synthetic drugs designed to have effects similar to those of illegal anabolic steroids, but with a much more targeted range of effects – making them applicable in a larger range of uses and therapies.

Plaintiff Nutrition Distribution, producer of a SARM-free muscle development supplement, filed a complaint recently against Wicked Nutrition Labs, a maker of a SARMs-based supplement, in the Southern District of California. The suit alleges that Wicked is harming consumers by passing these dangerous drugs off as dietary supplements; Nutrition Distribution claims that SARM-based products pose health risks to consumers, including liver damage and a heightened risk of heart disease – bad news for the weight lifters, bodybuilders and other athletes who are adopting Wicked’s SARMs products to enhance performance and physical appearance.

Alleged Benefits?

Nutrition Distribution, which does business under the “Athletic Xtreme” moniker, accuses rival Wicked of making false and misleading marketing claims regarding its SARMs-based product. In addition to mislabeling its SARM products as “dietary supplements,” the complaint alleges that Wicked falsely advertises its products as providing the benefits of traditional anabolic/androgenic steroids without the harmful side effects.

The Takeaway

The federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act precludes companies from suing each other for labeling violations, such as the ones alleged in this case. However, the Lanham Act provides another legal avenue, permitting competitors to sue their rivals for unfair competitive practices. Nutrition Distribution’s suit seeks to enjoin Wicked from producing and marketing its SARM products, as well as seeking compensatory damages and the award of Wicked’s profits under the Lanham Act. Nutrition Distribution recently filed suit against Dynamic Technical Formulations, another rival, on similar grounds.

Decades-long Milk War Froths On

FDA still pouring over terminology decision

Jarndyce v. Jarndyce

We’re all familiar, by this point, with products such as soymilk and almond milk – beverages that are often placed in the grocery store next to conventional dairy products. But consumers might be surprised to learn that the peaceful coexistence of the products is a mere front for an intermittent, seemingly interminable legal battle worthy of a Dickens novel.

The fight over whether plant-based products can be labeled as “milk” has been continuing on and off for 20 years. Two decades ago, the Soyfoods Association petitioned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for a common or usual name regulation to recognize the term “soymilk” as the proper terminology for “the liquid food that is obtained as a result of combining aqueous-extracted whole soybean solids and water.”

The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) fired back with a letter to the FDA, claiming that the law prohibited the use of the word milk when labeling products that were not derived from cows, and asked the FDA to enforce their interpretation. The Soyfoods Association responded in turn, arguing that the NMPF’s interpretation was correct but narrowly applied: If the term milk was qualified with the source from which the product was derived – soymilk, for example – the law remained unviolated.

The association also noted that their original petition remained unanswered after three years. Little did they know.

20 Years Later …

Today, the battle remains unresolved. In a recent letter issued by the FDA in response to a March 2017 petition by the Good Food Institute, the administration wrote that it was “not able to reach a decision on [the] petition…because of other agency competing priorities.” The letter went on to promise review and consideration of regulatory changes “as warranted and in the context of other program priorities within the Center.”

In the interim between the institute’s petition and the original Soyfoods Association letter from 1997, there had been a number of efforts by participants on either side of the debate to advance their cause, culminating in the “Dairy Pride Act,” legislation introduced by Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin in January that would require nondairy products to no longer be labeled with dairy terms such as milk and “cheese.” The bill has been sent to Committee.

The Takeaway

The Good Food Institute’s petition proposes an amendment to the regulatory regime allowing qualifying words to be added to a food name to specify its source, usage the institute argues is widely understood and accepted by consumers.

The institute also provides an in-depth legal argument, holding that its proposed change is consistent with the FDCA’s and the FDA’s policy and practices, and that restrictions on commercial speech would be brought under heightened judicial scrutiny that they would not be likely to withstand.

Court Continues Hold on Patent Service’s Activities, Assets

FTC alleges company offered bogus promotion and protection services to hopeful inventors

Freeze!

In late August, the Southern District of Florida ordered a preliminary injunction against World Patent Marketing (WPM), a patenting and invention-promotion service provider. The injunction, issued with the expectation that the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) case against WPM would be successful, forbids the company from misrepresenting its products or services and from making threats against people who complain about the company.

The injunction is the most recent development in the FTC’s case against WPM, which it launched in March.

Great Idea

That original complaint accused the company of running a promotion scam targeting inventors that “bilked thousands of consumers out of millions of dollars.” The suit alleges that WPM made promises to aspiring inventors that their service would create a patent for the inventors’ product, and that accompanying agreements for manufacturing and licensing would help the inventors make money off their creations. Specifically, the FTC claimed, WPM devised marketing materials that created a false impression that the company had actually helped other inventors in the past – when the company had no track record of success in doing so.

The FTC alleged that inventors that made it onto WPM’s radar would be contacted by company representatives pushing a patent analysis product for about $1,200. The analysis was invariably positive; later steps in the alleged scam included patent protection and promotional service packages priced at as much as $60,000. The services themselves, the commission alleges, are bogus.

The marketing assault occurred on a wide front, including internet, television, email, telemarketing and standard postal mail advertisements. The website featured profiles of products that the company had supposedly helped develop, and testimonials from the inventors. But the FTC claims that there has been little success with many of these featured products, and the inventor endorsements occurred quite early on in the customers’ relationships with WPM – far too early to justify their claims.

Additionally, when clients would threaten complaints about the company’s performance, WPM would make a variety of legal threats against them, including promises of extortion and defamation lawsuits.

The Takeaway

The preliminary injunction extends a freeze put on WPM’s activities by a temporary restraining order that the FTC obtained shortly after filing the initial complaint.

WPM and its co-defendants argued against the motion, claiming that their business model had changed from analyzing and filing potential patents to developing and marketing the inventors’ ideas. Unfortunately for WPM, the court found that the evidence – including an undercover investigation by the commission – indicated that the company continued to offer the same services as before, as well as the same misrepresentations.

The preliminary injunction prohibits misrepresentations, false marketing of services and the suppression of customer complaints, and freezes WPM’s assets.

 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© BakerHostetler | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

BakerHostetler
Contact
more
less

BakerHostetler on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.