Winston Proves Pet Food False Advertising Claims are All Bark and No Bite

When the unanimous sixth Circuit Court dismissed the plaintiff's false advertisement application under the Lanham Act and accepted refusal to change the license, Winston won the client's JM Smucker and Big Heart pet brand victory .

In 2016, pet food manufacturer Wysong Corporation sued six domestic largest pet food manufacturers, and its pet food packaging uses fraudulent marketing. Wysong believes that the defendant used images that were "high-quality" meat, poultry, fish, vegetables, misleading or misleading, in their packaging, and these images were taken from actual pet food actual It is not a complete representation of the composition. All respondents resigned and regarded these claims legally unreliable. After submitting hundreds of pages of briefing and three hours of oral argument, the district court found that Wysong's argument denied Wysong's amendment request that it did not support literal or implicit false claims under the Lanham Act did.

Upon appeal, the 6th Circuit reached an agreement. It denied Wysong's literal false statement and explained that the defendant's pet food packaging indicates the type of animal that makes pet food but consumers can understand, but it does not necessarily use precise cuts. It also refused the "misleading" packaging and found that Wysong could not explain how each image mislead consumers based on the context of the advertisement. As the sixth circuit court emphasizes, "In a common sense, rational consumers demand that they are less likely to expect dog foods to be made from the same meat they eat" .

The Winston team consists of partners Ron Rothstein and Steffen Johnson, and Associate Kerry Donovan. Matthew Olson supports appeals

Alpo Pet Foods vs. Ralston Purina Co. shows that ads based on test results that are not statistically significant may be valid reasons for erroneous advertisements. In the following cases, Ralston Purina claims that the dog feed is beneficial to dog hip dysplastic dogs and demonstrates research and testing requirements. Alpo Pet Foods submitted to Purina the wrong advertisement claim that the test result can not support advertisement claims. After reviewing the evidence and method Purina used for the test, the court not only determined that the test result was not significant, judged that the test was not enough for the test, hence did not support Purina's claim .

In 2016, pet food manufacturer Wysong Corporation sued six domestic largest pet food manufacturers. Wysong believes that the defendant used images that were "high-quality" meat, poultry, fish, vegetables, misleading or misleading, in their packaging, and these images were taken from actual pet food actual It is not a complete representation of the composition. All respondents resigned and regarded these claims legally unreliable. After submitting hundreds of pages of briefing and three hours of oral argument, the district court found that Wysong's argument denied Wysong's amendment request that it did not support literal or implicit false claims under the Lanham Act did.