Yes, Gillette's exaggerated cartoon is illegal false advertising. Companies can't use cartoons to lie about what their products do. Even though everyone knows a cartoon isn't real life, you can't use it to show your product doing something it can't. Gillette's own tests showed the hair-lifting effect was tiny, but their cartoon showed it as a huge effect. That's a visual lie, which is against the law. Because the cartoon was a lie, the judge ordered Gillette to stop using it.

Yes, some of Gillette's advertising for the M3 Power razor is false and illegal because the animated part showing lots of hair lift is an exaggeration and the claims about hair angle change are totally wrong based on Gillette's own tests. 

The court says Schick is likely to win on these points. But the court doesn't think Schick proved that Gillette's general claims about lifting hair are completely false, even though the court has doubts about them.

Since Gillette and Schick are major competitors, the false claims are important to buyers, and Schick showed it will likely win, the court orders Gillette to stop the false angle change and exaggerated hair lifting claims in its ads. But it allows Gillette to keep making the general hair lifting claims for now.

Yes, a television advertisement that uses a greatly exaggerated animation to depict a key product feature constitutes literally false advertising under the Lanham Act. A party may not distort an inherent quality of its product in graphics or animation. While a cartoon is not expected to be perfectly realistic, where an advertisement's visual depiction grossly exaggerates the product's effect, it is legally considered a literally false statement. Here, Gillette’s own studies showed, at most, a minor hair extension effect, yet its animation depicted hairs extending to multiple times their original length. This exaggeration misrepresents an inherent quality of the product and is therefore literally false, regardless of whether the underlying scientific claim of hair extension is ultimately true. Because the animation and any remaining claims of hair-angle change are literally false, Schick has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits for its Lanham Act claim.

Yes, Gillette's advertising for the M3 Power razor system constitutes false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act because the animated portion of the advertisement and the claims regarding angle change of hair are literally false. The court finds that Schick has established a likelihood of success on the merits for these false claims. However, the court does not find literal falsity with respect to Gillette's general hair extension theory due to insufficient evidence. 

The court concludes that the animated product demonstration depicting exaggerated hair extension is literally false based on Gillette's own studies. The court also finds that any claims related to the M3 Power changing the angle of hair are literally false. 

While Schick attacked Gillette's testing regarding hair extension, it did not affirmatively prove the falsity of Gillette's hair extension theory in general. The court expresses doubt about this claim but cannot deem it literally false based on the evidence presented.

The court presumes irreparable harm because the parties are head-to-head competitors, the false claims are material to consumers, and Schick has shown a likelihood of success on its false advertising claims. Therefore, the court grants the preliminary injunction in part to prohibit Gillette's use of the false angle change claims and animated demonstration, but denies the injunction with respect to the general hair extension claim.

Schick Manufacturing, Inc. v. Gillette Co.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot