The lack of a clear law for the classification of the product and the plaintiffs description of the product as ground were the government's reason for claiming reasonable justification. Although this might be correct, it is noteworthy that the customs department had dealt with a similar issue in the previous Shah Bros case. In the earlier case, the government had agreed to properly classify the gutkha as chewing tobacco. The government, however, refused to reclassify the product in the current case despite the product being similar to that in the earlier case. The governments refusal to classify the identical product in the same manner and for similar reasons did not satisfy the requirement of reasonable
Why or why not? Yes I agree with the judge decision, since there was a similar case where the judge found a defendant negligent when sulphuric acid in a defective jug broke and caused acid to pour over the consumer, resulting injury and damages to her furniture and floors of her home. The judge used the strict product liability theory in the case of Mabee V. Sutliff & Case CO., INC. 1-The Product was defective when sold. Mrs. Mabee ordered two-one gallon glass jugs of sulphuric acid, which were delivered to her front door.
Case: 791 F2d 189 Thompson Medical Co. Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission Facts: This case concerns a complaint brought by the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC" or "Commission") against petitioner Thompson Medical Company under Secs. The Commission ordered Thompson to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that Aspercreme is effective and to disclose in the product 's labeling and advertising that it does not contain aspirin. Thompson challenges the FTC 's order as arbitrary and capricious, contrary to public policy, unsupported by substantial evidence, and discordant with applicable Commission precedent.
Yet, despite the claims, a judge in Cleveland this week says Dannon must pay consumers up to $45 million in damages under the terms of a class action settlement, reached in federal court. The agreement also calls for Dannon to change its health claims for Activia and DanActive. , Dannon defended its products and says it settled the lawsuit to "avoid the cost and distraction of
The bottom line is that TBI is big business, and you have to be careful about some of the products that claim to
The district court rejected VIP Products LLC’s nominative fair use defense saying that the Bad Spaniels toy’s significant differences to the Jack Daniel’s trade dress and bottle design did not qualify it for normative fair use. I affirm this assessment, as VIP Products LLC’s ‘Bad Spaniels’ does not directly refer to Jack Daniel’s Properties, and thus, does not qualify for normative trademark. However, this means that in order for VIP Products to sell their product, they need to argue classic fair use. However, they can not do this, because classic fair use defense requires that a trademark, “is used in good faith for its primary meaning, and no consumer confusion is likely to occur” (“4.11 Fair Use of Trademarks - Introduction to Intellectual Property”). The oral argument from Jack Daniel’s said, “29% stated that they believed there were connections to Jack Daniels” (Hernandez), and VIP Products LLC said, “in a survey done by the U.S. District Court of Arizona, they found that more than 70% of surveyed customers never actually thought or considered the fact that Jack Daniel’s had or could have endorsed the product” (Schissler).
Shalala, the FDA (defendant) did not authorize the appellants to include the four claims on the label of the dietary supplements with the reasoning that the scientific evidence is not enough to meet the requirements of significant scientific agreement11. In response to this, the appellant argued that the FDA never explained the term significant or on what basis the FDA measures the significant evidence and thus violated their constitutional rights under First Amendment by not providing an explanation with reasoning for rejecting the appellants proposed health claims11. Also, the appellants argued that under Administrative Procedure Act the FDA is obliged to articulate a standard good deal more concrete than the undefined “significant scientific agreement”11. Therefore, the court hold that the FDA’s interpretation regarding the four claims is invalid as the FDA did not provide a valid definition of scientific
In the online article, How Big Pharma is Trying to Improve its Image, Jim Hightower establishes his argument that the PhRMA is merely after money by using advertising and lobbying. He supports his claim by using sarcasm to make his audience feel slightly ignorant and intense diction that also possesses a sarcastic underlying tone to persuade his audience of the PhRMA’s inability to be honest and fair. Afterwards, Hightower provides his audience with quotes from a CEO that further add to his credibility. Also, the text is structured in a specific order to slowly build up the readers anger.
Jan acknowledges his situation, “The whole idea of lawsuits is to settle, to compel the other side to settle” [1]. In fact, he uses this reasoning to his advantage by demanding a total of 320 million dollars from both companies. The case is drawn out and both businesses stubbornly refuse to take responsibility, Cheeseman arguing that, “These chemicals never reached Wells G and H - we will show that. And they never made anyone sick. We will show that, too” [1] while Fascher, representing Beatrice Foods, explaining that, “Unless you've proven that poisons reached the wells, there's no case” [1].
The Koke Company claims that the Coca-Cola Company contained cocaine (from coca leaves) in its product, which it no longer did. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Coca-Cola Co, but the Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the ruling. Coca-Cola
If the companies were honest with us customers, this wouldn’t be an issue. Thus, if labels were honest we would not have personal and health
However, they should not be allowed to target the consumers themselves on television, only though physicians. This would drastically reduce over prescribing and patients being prescribed drugs they do not need. By banning drug and narcotic advertising, this would infringe the corporation’s rights to free speech. This has been one of the top argument for why legislation should not be passed, as seen in the lawsuit by Arimin against the FDA. This is a very strong argument as it has constitutional backing.
POM stated that Coca-Cola was in violation of the Lanham Act which is a federal law prohibiting false advertising and unfair competition laws. Pom challenged that the name, labeling, marketing, and advertising of Coca Cola’s pomegranate blueberry juice drink (Oyez.org). The district court ruled that POM Wonderful’s claim could not be heard because of the FDCA or the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act
Second, it discourages others from doing things in the first place. When even small companies get violently silenced by corporations, nobody feel safe. It sets a terrible example that people in power have the right to take away the freedom of speech, which may make things even
In fact, one notorious company for using logical fallacies in their advertisements is Proactiv. Thus, the Proactiv commercial featuring Lindsay Lohan that aired on TV a couple of years ago is a precise example of the appeal to authority, bandwagon, and plain folk logical fallacies being used to get their product sold. In the commercial, Proactiv uses an appeal to authority to earn an individual’s trust. To clarify, this logical fallacy is used when a company or brand hires a popular celebrity or a person with “authority” to advertise and express how beneficial a product is.
