Opinion ID: 777678
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did J & J Disseminate Misleading Claims Re Mylanta Night Time Strength?

Text: 43 Absent a finding that an advertising claim is literally false, a plaintiff may still allege a successful Lanham Act cause of action by proving the following five elements by a preponderance of evidence: 44 (1) that the defendant has made false or misleading statements as to his own product [or another's]; (2) that there is actual deception or at least a tendency to deceive a substantial portion of the intended audience; (3) that the deception is material in that it is likely to influence purchasing decisions; (4) that the advertised goods traveled in interstate commerce; and (5) that there is a likelihood of injury to the plaintiff in terms of declining sales, loss of good will, etc. 45 Rorer, 19 F.3d at 129 (alteration in original). The burden, as we pointed out already, rests with the plaintiff. Sandoz, 902 F.2d at 228. 46 As noted above, we believe the District Court properly concluded that Novartis is likely to succeed on the merits of its Lanham Act claim because the MNTS name necessarily implies the literally false message that the product is specially formulated for nighttime use. Alternatively, we would still affirm the determination that Novartis is likely to succeed on the merits because we agree that Novartis will likely be able to prove, through the use of a consumer survey, that the MNTS name and label mislead consumers into believing that the product provides all-night relief. See Rorer, 19 F.3d at 129-30; Sandoz, 902 F.2d at 228-29. 47 The District Court gave significant weight to the results of a consumer survey designed by Dr. Gerald L. Ford. See 129 F.Supp.2d at 364-67. The Ford survey was conducted in what is called a double blind fashion during which both the respondents and the interviewers are unaware of the purpose of the survey or its sponsor. According to Dr. Ford, 432 respondents were split into two groups known as cells. The first cell was asked to focus on the MNTS product line as it would likely appear in retail stores. The second cell served as a control group that was asked to focus on the Mylanta Extra Strength product. In the MNTS cell, approximately 30% of the respondents expressed their belief that MNTS provided relief that lasted the whole night. By contrast, less than 5% of the respondents in the control cell believed that Mylanta Extra Strength provides relief that lasts all night. After netting out this noise, 7 the survey results indicated that a total of 25% of respondents received a message that the MNTS product provides all-night relief. 48 The District Court accepted this 25% figure as sufficient proof that the MNTS product name deceive[s] a substantial portion of the intended audience. 129 F.Supp.2d at 367. Indeed, this figure is higher than others that have been found sufficient to support a Lanham Act violation. See Rorer, 19 F.3d at 129, 134 n. 14 (assuming without deciding that [w]ith regard to what constitutes a substantial or significant number of consumers who are misled[,] ... 20% would be sufficient); see also Church & Dwight Co. v. S.C. Johnson & Son, 873 F.Supp. 893, 911 (D.N.J.1994) (acknowledging that 21% to 34% would be sufficient); McNeilab, Inc. v. Am. Home Prods. Corp., 501 F.Supp. 517, 525, 527 (S.D.N.Y.1980) (holding that 23% was sufficient). 49 J & J argues that the survey results were not credible because the survey contained leading or suggestive questions. 8 The evidentiary value of a survey depends on its underlying objectivity as determined through many factors, such as whether [the survey] is properly `filtered' to screen out those who got no message from the advertisement, whether the questions are directed to the real issues, and whether the questions are leading or suggestive. Johnson & Johnson-Merck Consumer Pharm. Co. v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., 960 F.2d 294, 300 (2d Cir.1992). A survey is not credible if it relies on leading questions which are `inherently suggestive and invite guessing by those who did not get any clear message at all.' Rorer, 19 F.3d at 134. 50 Dr. Ford's declaration states that the survey is objective because a full filter question was used (Q7.0) that asked: [B]ased just upon your review, does the labeling on this product communicate anything ... about how long this product will provide relief? He declares that [o]nly respondents who received such a message were asked follow-up questions to determine precisely what message about duration they received. The follow-up questions were therefore, in his view, not misleading. 51 However, J & J argues that the Ford survey is improper because the filter question itself was suggestive and misleading. It maintains that the survey presented respondents with a leading question about the product's duration of relief when the subject's responses to the first three questions (Q6.0, Q6.1, Q6.2) demonstrated that they had been left with no impression about how long the product would work. In short, J & J is arguing that the filtering was applied too late, and should have occurred after Q6.2, not after Q7.0. 52 In Rorer, we affirmed the District Court's decision to ignore survey results that suffered from repetitive and leading questions and no filter mechanism. 19 F.3d at 135 (internal quotations omitted). The questions asked in that survey were as follows: 53 2a. What ideas did the advertiser try to get across about Maalox tablets in the commercial? 54 2b. What other ideas did they try to get across? 55 2c. What did they show in this commercial about Maalox tablets? What else? Anything else? 56 3a. In the commercial you just saw, they said Maalox tablets are the strongest. What does that mean to you? 57 3b. What is the commercial saying that Maalox tablets are strongest at doing? 58 5a. The commercial you just saw contained the statement, Your doctor will tell you they're the strongest, referring to Maalox tablets. What does that statement mean to you? 59 Id. at 133 n. 12. The District Court rejected results from questions 3a, 3b and 5a for the following reasons: 60 The first communication questions [2a, 2b and 2c] were most probative. For the second series of questions, the survey failed to filter out those respondents who recorded a message of superiority on first viewing. By flagging Rorer's strongest claim (in the commercial you just saw, they said Maalox is the strongest antacid there is. What does that mean to you?), the comprehension question colored the answers. The next questions 9 ... were even more suggestive. By asking what ESMP [Extra Strength Maalox Plus] was strongest at doing, they called for the answer relief. The technique of punctuating open-ended questions with repeated probes is questionable but did not discredit the responses to questions (2a), (2b), and (2c). 61 Id. at 135. Thus, the District Court found that 2a, 2b, and 2c were not leading questions, but 3a, 3b and 5a were leading because a proper filter had not been applied to screen out those respondents who recorded a message of superiority on first viewing. The comprehension question that should have served as a filter (question 3a) was itself a leading question. 62 We believe the filter in this case is qualitatively different from the one in Rorer. In Rorer, the comprehension question asked: In the commercial you just saw, they said Maalox tablets are the strongest. What does that mean to you? It was clearly flagging for the attention of the survey respondent the specific message in the commercial that the plaintiff alleged to be misleading (namely, that Maalox tablets are the strongest) and leading the respondent to answer that strength means something other than what it says. Respondents then answered that the strongest tablets would provide good relief or better relief, which is not true because strength does not correlate to efficacy. The respondents were led to convey that they had received this message of efficacy because, had they responded that strongest means strongest (the only answer that would have been true), they would have believed that they were being unresponsive to the question. 63 By contrast, the comprehension question in the Ford survey (Q7.0) asked generally whether the product label communicated anything about how long the product would provide relief. It did not ask respondents to focus on the MNTS name before answering this question. Moreover, it did not lead them to respond that the product provides all-night relief. Although the question prompted respondents to comment on duration of relief, the respondents were free to say that the label communicated that the product provides fast-acting, short-term relief. To do so would not have been unresponsive to the question. The District Court therefore did not abuse its discretion by concluding that the Ford survey met a proper filter question threshold and could be accorded significant weight. Rorer, 19 F.3d at 134 (the probative value of a consumer survey is a highly fact-specific determination and a court may place such weight on survey evidence as it deems appropriate); see also Havana Club Holding, S.A. v. Galleon S.A., 203 F.3d 116, 131 (2d Cir.2000) (A district court has broad discretion concerning the weight of particular evidence, including consumer surveys such as those proffered here....), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 918, 121 S.Ct. 277, 148 L.Ed.2d 201 (2000). 10 64 In addition to challenging the objectivity of the Ford survey, J & J disputes the District Court's use of its results. J & J argues that the District Court's finding can only be supported by respondents who answered that the product name implied that there was all-night relief. However, only questions Q8.0, Q8.1, and Q8.2 11 ask the respondent to evaluate the product name, whereas questions Q6.0 through Q7.5 ask the respondent to evaluate the product's label. Taking only the answers to questions Q8.0 through Q8.2 into account, less than 5% of respondents indicated that the product name communicates a message of all-night relief. 65 Nevertheless, we agree with Novartis that excluding all answers to questions Q6.0 through Q7.5 is too restrictive. Counting responses to all survey questions, 60% of the persons finding an `all night' message referred to the name. It has already been established that 25% of respondents reported that they had received a message of all-night relief. If 60% of those respondents referenced the product name in their answers, it is fair to conclude that at least 15% of the total number of respondents (60% of 25% = 15%) derived a message of all-night relief from the product name, not the entire product label. 66 Assuming arguendo that only 15% of respondents received a message of all-night relief from the MNTS name, we need not vacate the injunction. Relying upon Coca-Cola Co. v. Tropicana Prods., Inc., 690 F.2d 312, 317 (2d Cir.1982), the District Court observed that even a 15.5% figure would be sufficient to demonstrate a likelihood of substantial consumer confusion. 12 129 F.Supp.2d at 367. In Coca-Cola the consumer survey evidence demonstrated only 7.5% consumer deception. Coca-Cola Co. v. Tropicana Prods., Inc., 538 F.Supp. 1091, 1096 (S.D.N.Y.), rev'd, 690 F.2d 312 (2d Cir.1982). There, the District Court denied the injunction sought by the plaintiff because, inter alia, a level of consumer confusion significantly below 15% does not indicate plaintiff's probable success on the merits. Id. On appeal, the Second Circuit reversed, finding that a significant number of consumers would be likely to be misled. Coca-Cola, 690 F.2d at 317. 13 67 In an analogous context involving trademark cases under the Lanham Act, courts have held that survey evidence of 15% confusion is sufficient to demonstrate actual confusion. See Sara Lee Corp. v. Kayser-Roth Corp., 81 F.3d 455, 466-67 & n. 15 (4th Cir.1996) (15-20% confusion was sufficient to establish actual confusion ... to a significant degree); Goya Foods, Inc. v. Condal Distribs., Inc., 732 F.Supp. 453, 457 n. 7 (S.D.N.Y.1990) (9-10% confusion was sufficient to demonstrate meaningful evidence of actual confusion). Likewise we believe that survey evidence demonstrating that 15% of the respondents were misled by the MNTS name is sufficient to establish the actual deception or at least a tendency to deceive a substantial portion of the intended audience, Rorer, 19 F.3d at 129, necessary to establish a Lanham Act claim for false or misleading advertising under section 43(a). The District Court therefore did not clearly err when it found that Novartis would likely be able to establish this element of its Lanham Act claim. 68 To summarize, we affirm the District Court's conclusion that Novartis would likely be able to succeed on the merits. Novartis will likely be able to prove that the MNTS name necessarily implies a false message that the product is specially formulated for nighttime relief, or alternatively that the MNTS name and label mislead a substantial portion of consumers to believe that the product provides all-night relief. 69