Opinion ID: 75900
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Focus Dailies Pamphlet

Text: 19 The Focus Dailies pamphlet is an advertisement, highlighting the advantages of the lens: comfort, convenience, and cost. The district court found that the pamphlet, considered along with the Focus Dailies letter, made false comparative claims. R1-38-7. This language, coupled with the fact that the district court did not require proof of consumer confusion, see Am. Council, 185 F.3d at 614, leads us to understand that the district court found the advertisement to be literally false. 20 We begin with the language of the pamphlet. The cover cites a five to one consumer preference for Focus Dailies, but does not name a competing product. R1-33, Ex. G at 1. In fact, neither Johnson & Johnson nor Acuvue appear anywhere in the pamphlet. The other three pamphlet pages explain that the lens is comfortable due to thin edges and high water content, and reasonably priced due to cost-efficient production. 21 J&J's false advertising claim is based on 1-800's comparison of Focus Dailies to ACUVUE. Because the Focus Dailies pamphlet does not cite Acuvue or J&J, we turn to context to determine whether a consumer might imply a comparison of the two products. The district court analyzed the Focus Dailies pamphlet within the context of the Focus Dailies letter. These two advertisements were not paired by 1-800; there would be no reason for consumers to see them together. 10 The pamphlet was actually coupled with the Exclusive Deal letter, which focused on J&J and its trade practices. Within the Exclusive Deal letter is a reference to ACUVUE: We have enclosed more information about a lens preferred 5 to 1 to Acuvue. R1-33, Ex. F. Because the context of the Focus Dailies pamphlet includes a reference to ACUVUE, the nature of our analysis shifts. We analyze the advertisement as an establishment claim: J&J must establish that the quoted proposition is not supported by the CLS study. See Quaker State Corp., 977 F.2d at 63. As explained earlier in this opinion, J&J did not and cannot meet this burden of proof, so the pamphlet—even read within an expansively defined context — cannot be construed as literally false.