The Coca-Cola Company v. Tropicana Products, Inc.
690 F.2d 312, 216 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 272, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 25203 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An advertisement that is literally or explicitly false on its face, including through its visual representations, violates the Lanham Act, and a court may issue an injunction against it without requiring evidence of the advertisement's impact on the buying public.
Facts:
- Tropicana Products, Inc. (Tropicana) and The Coca-Cola Company (Coke) were leading competitors in the national chilled orange juice market.
- In February 1982, Tropicana began airing a television commercial for its Premium Pack orange juice featuring athlete Bruce Jenner.
- The commercial visually depicted Jenner squeezing an orange and then pouring that freshly squeezed juice directly into a Tropicana carton.
- Simultaneously, an announcer stated that the juice is "pure, pasteurized juice as it comes from the orange."
- In reality, Tropicana's juice was not squeezed directly into the carton; it was pasteurized (heated to about 200° F) and sometimes frozen prior to packaging.
Procedural Posture:
- The Coca-Cola Company sued Tropicana Products, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for false advertising under the Lanham Act.
- Coca-Cola moved for a preliminary injunction to stop Tropicana from airing the commercial.
- The district court (trial court) denied Coca-Cola's motion for a preliminary injunction.
- Coca-Cola, as appellant, appealed the denial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a television commercial that visually depicts a product being prepared in a way that is factually untrue, combined with a misleading audio claim, constitute literally false advertising under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, thereby warranting a preliminary injunction?
Opinions:
Majority - Cardamone, J.
Yes. A commercial that is literally false on its face violates the Lanham Act, and a preliminary injunction is warranted. To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must show irreparable harm and a likelihood of success on the merits. Here, Coke demonstrated irreparable harm because, as a direct competitor, it would likely lose sales if Tropicana's misleading ad caused consumers to switch products; consumer surveys confirmed that a significant number of viewers were misled. Coke also demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits because the commercial was literally false on its face. The visual depiction of juice being squeezed directly into a carton is an explicit, false representation of the manufacturing process. Furthermore, the audio claim that it is 'pasteurized juice as it comes from the orange' is 'blatantly false' because juice is not pasteurized until after it comes from the orange. Because the ad was literally false, the court does not need to consider evidence of consumer reaction to find a Lanham Act violation.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying what constitutes 'literally false' advertising under the Lanham Act, establishing that a visual depiction can be just as explicitly false as a verbal statement. It lowers the evidentiary burden for plaintiffs seeking preliminary injunctions in false advertising cases against direct competitors by allowing a presumption of irreparable harm if the ad is shown to be misleading to a significant number of consumers. The ruling makes it easier for companies to quickly halt visually deceptive advertisements without needing extensive proof of actual consumer confusion or lost sales.
Unlock the full brief for The Coca-Cola Company v. Tropicana Products, Inc.