Opinion ID: 440186
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Findings Concerning Cope

Text: 56
57 Cope, which Sterling marketed as a remedy for nervous tension headaches, contained aspirin, caffeine, and methapyrilene fumarate, an antihistimine included to induce drowsiness. The Commission held this formula was falsely represented to be unique in advertisements such as this: 58 Cope looks different, is different. Besides a powerful pain reliever, Cope gives you a gentle relaxer. The others don't .... A unique formula for really effective relief of nervous tension headache. And you get it only in Cope. 59 The representation was held to be false because a Bristol-Myers product, Excedrin P.M., also contained aspirin and methapyrilene fumarate. The Commission found that the misrepresentation was material because it discouraged consumers from comparing the two products. 60 Sterling maintains the Cope formula was unique because Cope was the only product on the market designed for daytime relief of tension headaches. It contends Excedrin P.M. was not intended for the same use as Cope; Excedrin's larger dose of methapyrilene fumerate made it appropriate only for nighttime use. Sterling argues that, unlike Cope, Excedrin P.M. was intended as a sleeping aid. 61 We agree with the Commission that the Cope advertisements made clear and broad claims of uniqueness that were in no way limited to Cope's intended use as a daytime remedy. Because consumers would not have been led to distinguish Cope from Excedrin P.M., the representation of uniqueness was deceptive. 62
63 Sterling does not contest the Commission's conclusion that it made therapeutic efficacy claims as to Cope. However, it claims these representations did not include the assertion that Cope's superiority was established. 64 The Commission based its conclusion on the visual aspects of advertisements for Cope. It cited as an example a television advertisement in which an announcer discussed Cope's efficacy in conjunction with his description of important studies on pain relief. The announcer held a copy of the important studies. In the background were shelves lined with ponderous books. We agree with the Commission that the combination of the visual and oral representations was apt to convey to consumers a message of proven efficacy. 65 The Commission found Sterling could not substantiate its claim that Cope's therapeutic efficacy was established. Sterling does not challenge that finding on appeal.