Opinion ID: 601792
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the engine wear claim

Text: 38 First, Pennzoil asserts that its claims regarding superior engine protection constitute common marketplace puffery, and thus do not violate the Lanham Act. Puffery is an exaggeration or overstatement expressed in broad, vague, and commendatory language. 39 Such sales talk, or puffing, as it is commonly called, is considered to be offered and understood as an expression of the seller's opinion only, which is to be discounted as such by the buyer.... The puffing rule amounts to a seller's privilege to lie his head off, so long as he says nothing specific. 40 W. Page Keeton, et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 109, at 756-57 (5th ed. 1984). Puffery is distinguishable from misdescriptions or false representations of specific characteristics of a product. As such, it is not actionable. See Stiffel Co. v. Westwood Lighting Group, 658 F.Supp. 1103, 1115 (D.N.J.1987). 41 The predicate for Pennzoil's position--that its claims that its motor oil offered better protection against engine wear amounted to mere puffery--is that its advertisements included only general claims of superiority. See Nikkal Indus., Ltd. v. Salton, Inc., 735 F.Supp. 1227, 1234 n. 3 (S.D.N.Y.1990) (General claims that the product was better were mere puffery and not actionable as false advertising.); United States Healthcare, Inc. v. Blue Cross of Greater Phila., 898 F.2d 914, 926 (3d Cir.), (In the context of the advertising in the case, the defendant's claim that it was the better health care plan was an innocuous kind of puffery.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 816, 111 S.Ct. 58, 112 L.Ed.2d 33 (1990). 7 42 Pennzoil's claim of engine protection by contrast involves more than a mere generality. Here, the claim is both specific and measurable by comparative research. In fact, Pennzoil seeks to substantiate its claims of superiority by reference to testing. This distinguishes the present case from those cited by Pennzoil and defeats Pennzoil's assertion that its claims constitute only puffery. See Gillette Co. v. Wilkinson Sword, Inc., No. 89 Civ. 3686 (KMW), slip op. at 42-43 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 1991) (performance claim which can be comparatively rated is not puffery); Toro Co. v. Textron, Inc., 499 F.Supp. 241, 249-53 & n. 23 (D.Del.1980) (claims concerning specific product attributes are not puffery.); In re Bristol-Myers Co., 102 F.T.C. 21, 321 (1983), (claims subject to measurement are not puffery). cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1189, 105 S.Ct. 960, 83 L.Ed.2d 966 (1985) 43 Pennzoil's failure to specifically mention its competitors in the sentence promoting engine protection also does not render the statement puffery. First, the district court found that the statement compared Pennzoil to its major competitors by necessary implication. Pennzoil stated it is superior to the other brands in protecting against viscosity breakdown, noting that viscosity breakdown leads to engine problems. It left the consumer with the obvious conclusion that Pennzoil is superior to the other leading brands in protection against engine problems. Therefore, Pennzoil did, by implication, compare its effectiveness against engine wear to that of its competitors, and the court's finding did not constitute a rewriting of the commercials, as claimed by Pennzoil. 8 44 Moreover, there need not be a direct comparison to a competitor for a statement to be actionable under the Lanham Act. See American Home Prods. Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, 654 F.Supp. 568 (S.D.N.Y.1987) (holding that the claim that Tylenol gives unsurpassed relief is not puffery despite the lack of a direct comparison); Gillette, No. 89 Civ 3686 (KMW), slip op. at 42 (the claim Smoothest, most comfortable shave is not puffery). Under Pennzoil's logic, as Castrol points out, the Ford Motor Company could claim that its Pinto model offers the best rear end protection as long as no competitor is specifically named. Such a result is impractical and illogical. 45 Second, Pennzoil asserts that the district court erred in holding that the claims relating to better engine protection were literally false by necessary implication. However, in assessing whether an advertisement is literally false, a court must analyze the message conveyed in full context. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Richardson-Vicks, Inc., 735 F.Supp. 597, 600 (D.Del.1989), aff'd, 902 F.2d 222 (3d Cir.1990); see also Gillette, No. 89 Civ. 3686 (KMW), slip op. at 9 ([Defendant's] claim of 'six times smoother,' or any use of the word 'smoother' by [Defendant] in the context of its advertisements for shaving products, necessarily implies that the shave itself is smoother.) (emphasis in original); Cuisinarts, Inc. v. Robot-Coupe Int'l Corp., No. 81 CIV 731 (CSH), 1982 WL 121559,  2 (S.D.N.Y. June 9, 1982) ([I]n determining facial falsity the court must view the face of the statement in its entirety, rather than examining the eyes, nose, and mouth separately and in isolation from each other); Tambrands, Inc. v. Warner-Lambert Co., 673 F.Supp. 1190, 1193-94 (S.D.N.Y.1987) (Representations made by necessary implication can constitute false advertising.). 46 For example, the following message appeared in the advertisement litigated in the Cuisinarts case: Robot-Coupe: 21 Cuisinart: 0 47 When all 21 of the three-star restaurants in France's Michelin Guide choose the same professional model food processor, somebody knows the score--shouldn't you? 48 Cuisinarts, 1982 WL 121559,  2. The court held this advertisement to be literally false, opining: 49 The basic point is that the ad states, by necessary implication, that Robot-Coupe and Cuisinarts both build professional model food processors, and that French restaurateurs, presented with two existing alternatives, chose the Robot-Coupe model over the Cuisinarts model by the score of 21 to 0. I appreciate that the ad does not make that statement in haec verba. That is not necessary. 50 Id. 51 In like fashion, Pennzoil's advertisements claim that viscosity breakdown leads to engine failure. Pennzoil then claims, albeit falsely, that it outperforms any leading motor oil against viscosity breakdown. The implication is that Pennzoil outperforms the other leading brands with respect to protecting against engine failure, because it outperforms them in protecting against viscosity breakdown, the cause of engine failure. Moreover, Pennzoil's Executive Vice President of Marketing, William Welcher, conceded in his deposition that this advertisement conveys the message that a consumer who selects a motor oil other than Pennzoil runs an enhanced risk of engine failure. 52 Nonetheless, the dissent charges the district court with substituting its judgment of the advertisement's meaning for that of the consumers and further argues that the court's reaction is at best not determinative and at worst irrelevant. American Brands, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 413 F.Supp. 1352, 1357 (S.D.N.Y.1976); see also Sandoz, 902 F.2d at 229 (A Lanham Act plaintiff cannot obtain relief by arguing how consumers could react; it must show how consumers actually do react.). The dissent dismisses the above cited cases which support the necessary implication analysis with the conclusory statement that [t]hese cases clearly dealt with false representations of fact, not allegedly false implications of a possibly invalid, but scientifically accurate, test. Dissent at 958. 53 First, as we discuss, the ASTM-3945 Test is not a scientifically accurate test for the purpose for which Pennzoil attempts to utilize it; we repeat it simply does not measure viscosity breakdown. 54 Second, this case also deals with a representation of fact: whether one oil outperforms another. That is no different than whether one razor gives a smoother shave than its competitor, or any of the other cases cited in the majority opinion. 55 Despite the cases that we cite above in which courts interpret the meaning of an advertisement without reference to consumer evidence, the dissent baldly asserts that consumer evidence is necessary to interpret the meaning of an advertisement. 56 However, R.J. Reynolds and Sandoz involved advertisements which were found not to be literally false. See, e.g., R.J. Reynolds, 413 F.Supp. at 1357. In R.J. Reynolds, the court stated that it was asked to determine whether a statement acknowledged to be literally true and grammatically correct nevertheless had a tendency to mislead, confuse, or deceive. 57 Nor, in reaching that conclusion [of literal falsity], do I tread upon forbidden judicial territory. To use Judge Lasker's phrase ... the court's reaction is at best not determinative and at worst irrelevant only in cases where the issue is whether a statement acknowledged to be literally true and grammatically correct nevertheless has a tendency to mislead, confuse or deceive. Consumer reaction is determinative where an advertisement is ambiguous and, hence, only potentially misleading. In the case at bar, the statement conveyed by the ad is unambiguous. 58 Cuisinarts, 1982 WL 121559,  2 (citations omitted); see also McNeil, 938 F.2d at 1549 (where an advertisement is shown to be literally false, the court may enjoin it without reference to consumer confusion). As in Cuisinarts, the district court here found that Pennzoil's advertisements had an unambiguous meaning by necessary implication in their assertions that Pennzoil motor oil protects against engine failure better than its major competitors' motor oils. 9 59 Moreover, Castrol presented copious affirmative evidence to prove that Pennzoil's claim to superior protection from engine failure is false. For example, pursuant to evidence introduced by Castrol, the district court found the testimony of Pennzoil's expert witnesses, Dr. Hault and Dr. Spikes, speculative and unconvincing. The trial court also found Pennzoil's reliance on the ASTM D-3945 Test to be misplaced. Qualified experts testified that percent viscosity loss, as measured by ASTM D-3945, is irrelevant to engine protection. It is the level of viscosity that the engine experiences in operation, not the percentage loss, that is significant to engine performance. Also, the ASTM D-3945 Test measures viscosity loss in terms of low shear viscosity, while the industry consensus teaches that high temperature and high shear conditions most authentically emulate actual engine conditions. 60 Also, Pennzoil's Vice President of Product Support, Donald M. Johnson, candidly conceded that car owners who utilize Castrol motor oil do not run an enhanced risk of engine failure. In addition, Pennzoil's director of research, James Newsom, testified that under normal operating conditions, consumers would not experience engine wear whether they chose Castrol or Pennzoil. Furthermore, under the industry established test for engine wear protection, both Castrol and Pennzoil met the highest performance requirements of the American Petroleum Institute. 61 Therefore, there was ample evidence adduced at trial to prove that Pennzoil's claims of superior protection against engine wear were literally false, and thus the district court's finding was not clearly erroneous. See Anderson, 470 U.S. 564, 573-75, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 1511-12 (the appellate court should not disturb the trial judge's findings regarding credibility of witnesses).