More than thirty years of trials and appeals have led to Patterson Belknap's prominence in the field of advertising law. Our practice is recognized nationwide in the top band of firms by Chambers USA. The publication notes that our team has a "leading edge" and offers a "pool of incredibly talented individuals with vast industry knowledge." The guide also writes that the team is "one of the best false advertising practices around." Steven Zalesin, also ranked in Chambers' top band of litigators nationwide, is a "rock-solid and much sought-after litigator," who is greatly admired by peers and clients alike for his "exceptional courtroom skills and vigilance in protecting the long-term interests of his clients." Our practice is also recognized by U.S. News - Best Lawyers® "Best Law Firms" as one of the top tier firms both nationally and in New York City. In 2009, the group was named one of Law360's IP firms of the year. In 2009, the group was named one of Law360's IP firms of the year.
The firm has represented consumer products companies in many of the most notable false advertising cases throughout the nation. These include numerous false advertising class actions in which we have successfully defeated class certification. In addition to litigation, we regularly represent clients at the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau (NAD), at the major television networks, and before the Federal Trade Commission. We counsel clients on advertising clearance and product labeling review, analysis of claims support and the full range of day-to-day questions that arise in the regular conduct of our clients' business. Christine Miller heads up the Firm’s advertising counseling group; Ms. Miller is one of the most experienced and respected NAD practitioners in the country. Her group is available to clients at any time they wish to consult on these important and time-sensitive issues.
The firm has represented consumer products companies in nearly half of the false advertising cases decided by the Second Circuit in the past decade, and its litigators are widely recognized as among the country’s most experienced in this area. Some of our notable cases include:
- In an important case of first impression involving the intersection between FDA labeling rules and advertising law, we secured a complete victory on behalf of our client, a major soft drink company. The court granted our motion for summary judgment that another beverage manufacturer was precluded by law from bringing a Lanham Act challenge to a product name and label expressly permitted by FDA regulations.
- We recently defeated a motion for a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit brought by the manufacturer of the world's top-selling sports drink against its chief competitor. The court determined that the plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its false advertising and trademark infringement claims, could not show a risk of irreparable injury, and in any event had asserted claims that were barred by its own unclean hands.
- We obtained a preliminary injunction enjoining a major satellite television provider from airing nationally broadcast commercials. The injunction was affirmed on appeal and, in the process, the Second Circuit redefined several key doctrines in the law of false advertising.
- We recently concluded the successful representation of a medical device company, the defendant/counterclaim-plaintiff in a false advertising case involving two major competitors in the market for surgical devices. In the lawsuit, filed in federal court in California, both parties alleged violations of the Lanham Act and of California state law.
- We represented the maker of the leading no-calorie sweetener in a series of false advertising cases and in a high-stakes trade dress infringement action.
- In the false advertising cases, the plaintiff alleged that our client's advertising claims were false and misleading and that is no-calorie sweetener is not a "healthy" product. After obtaining a ruling excluding our adversaries key piece of evidence, the parties reached a mutually-agreeable settlement.
- In the high-stakes trade dress infringement action, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit entered a decision in our client's favor partially reversing the District Court's denial of a preliminary injunction against the sale of "knock-off" products that are confusingly similar in appearance to our clients product. After the District Court granted our client's renewed motion for preliminary injunction, the partied reached a mutually-agreeable settlement.
- We regularly represent the manufacturer of the leading non-prescription pain reliever in false advertising disputes with competitors. Over the years we have successfully prosecuted and defended numerous trials and appeals, including what was described by the court as "the largest and most complex false advertising case ever tried."
- We regularly represent one of the nation's leading consumer products companies in litigation concerning advertising claims for various household products such as plastic storage bags, cleaning solvents, water filters and pest control products.
- The firm represented a major pharmaceutical company in a suit against the maker of a leading depilatory to prohibit the competitor from linking its product with a product by our client. This case has become the leading precedent on the standard of injury necessary to prevail in a false advertising case.
- More than 30 years ago, our firm established itself as a leading firm in false advertising cases under the Lanham Act, when our attorneys obtained an injunction against American Home Products for advertising that Anacin® was superior to Tylenol®.