Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP has one of the nation’s premier advertising practices. We represent several of the nation’s largest advertisers, including major pharmaceutical and consumer products companies, along with small and medium-sized retailers, software firms and other advertisers. Over the past 20 years, the firm has litigated some of the most significant cases under the federal false advertising statute, the Lanham Act.

Kramer Levin has had extraordinary success litigating advertising suits on behalf of its clients. Recently we have prevailed in four highly publicized and significant cases, on behalf of both plaintiffs and defendants.

In January 2005, on behalf of McNeil-PPC, Inc., a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson and the market leader of dental floss, we secured a preliminary injunction against Pfizer, Inc., the manufacturer of Listerine® mouthwash. In an opinion that garnered significant press coverage, a federal court found Pfizer’s “Listerine® is as effective as floss” advertising campaign false and misleading. The court entered a broad preliminary injunction that, in addition to precluding Pfizer from making the false claims, required Pfizer to cover over labels on Listerine® bottles displaying the offending material.


In December 2004, we defeated a preliminary injunction motion in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware by TAP Pharmaceuticals, makers of Prevacid®, seeking to enjoin our client AstraZeneca’s “Better is Better” comparative advertising campaign for Nexium®, the country’s best-selling prescription drug.


In November 2004, we obtained a judgment from a federal judge on behalf of our client Johnson & Johnson Vision Care against CIBA Vision Corporation that CIBA’s advertising for its new contact lens product was false. The Court took the additional step of awarding Johnson & Johnson corrective advertising, which is rarely granted in false advertising cases.


In July 2004, we successfully defended Procter & Gamble in a suit brought by Colgate-Palmolive, alleging that Procter & Gamble’s advertising for its Whitestrips® at-home tooth whitening product was false and misleading. The lawsuit challenged a successful advertising campaign that helped make the Procter & Gamble product the market leader in the at-home whitening category. Colgate sought an injunction and $80 million in damages. Following a two week trial, a jury found no liability and thus awarded no damages — a complete victory for our client.

In another prominent case that resulted in a landmark ruling, Zeneca v. Eli Lilly, Kramer Levin obtained a preliminary injunction on behalf of what is now AstraZeneca enjoining claims made by sales representatives employed by Eli Lilly for its drug Evista®. We also obtained a temporary restraining order enjoining S.C. Johnson from making comparative claims disparaging Procter & Gamble’s advertising for its Swiffer® household cleaning product, and defeated S.C. Johnson’s challenge to Procter & Gamble’s Swiffer® advertising in an arbitration proceeding heard by a former federal judge. Other major cases include the successful defense of advertising for the Aleve® analgesic, American Home Products v. Procter & Gamble, and the successful defense of advertising for Procter & Gamble’s bathroom cleaning product, L&F Products v. Procter & Gamble .

Several of Kramer Levin’s Lanham Act cases have resulted in significant appellate court decisions interpreting the Lanham Act, including L&F Products v. Procter & Gamble, 45 F.3d 709 (2d Cir. 1995), Procter & Gamble v. Chesebrough-Ponds Inc., 747 F.2d 114 (2d Cir. 1984) and Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Richardson-Vicks Inc. , 902 F.2d 222 (3d Cir. 1990), a highly significant case involving the interrelationship between FDA regulation of over-the-counter (OTC) drugs and the Lanham Act.

Other significant cases include:

Mylan v. Procter & Gamble , a still-pending case in which we are defending Procter & Gamble’s advertising for Prilosec OTC against a challenge by a generic manufacturer of omeprazole;


Johnson & Johnson Vision Products v. Bausch & Lomb , in which we successfully prosecuted a claim that Bausch & Lomb was falsely advertising a new contact lens as safer for extended wear than our client’s Acuvue® lens;


Ferndale v. AstraZeneca , in which we prosecuted claims by AstraZeneca to enjoin a competitor from making false claims about AstraZeneca’s topical anesthetic product;


Playtex v. Procter & Gamble , in which we defended against Playtex’s efforts to enjoin Procter & Gamble’s advertising for its Tampax Pearl Tampon product;


The Clorox Company v. Procter & Gamble , in which we defended a suit brought by The Clorox Company to enjoin Procter & Gamble’s advertising for Tide® with Bleach in Puerto Rico;


Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc. , in which we prosecuted claims by Johnson & Johnson to enjoin a contact lens seller from making certain claims under the Lanham Act and multiple state law provisions across the country;


Bristol-Myers Squibb/Sanofi v. Bayer Corporation , in which, on behalf of Bayer Corporation, we defeated in substantial part an application for injunctive relief directed at advertising for Bayer Aspirin’s therapeutic effect on patients suffering from cardiovascular ailments;


Frito-Lay v. Procter & Gamble , in which the court denied Frito-Lay’s motion for a preliminary injunction addressed to Procter & Gamble’s advertising for Pringles®;


Schering-Plough v. Neutrogena Corp. , in which we defended claims brought by the makers of Coppertone suntan lotion against Neutrogena’s advertising and labeling for its suntan lotion;


Bell Atlantic Corp. v. ATT Corp. , in which the court denied as moot Bell Atlantic’s preliminary injunction motion after ATT ceased its offending conduct following commencement of the litigation;


Mobius Management Systems v. Fourth Dimension Software , a landmark decision concerning the scope of the Lanham Act in which we recovered treble damages on behalf of a software firm;


Mobius Management Systems v. Quest Software , an action we successfully prosecuted to enjoin false claims made by a software competitor;


Johnson & Johnson Vision Products v. The Contact Lens Supply Co. , in which we obtained a temporary restraining order enjoining defendants from making false and disparaging statements about the safety of Johnson & Johnson Vision Products’ Acuvue contact lenses;


Burroughs-Wellcome v. Richardson-Vicks , in which we obtained a favorable settlement of a challenge to Richardson-Vicks’ advertising for its cold medicine; and


Tropicana v. Citrus World , in which we defended a suit brought by Tropicana to enjoin advertising for Citrus World’s Florida’s Natural orange juice.

Kramer Levin also represents advertisers in challenges before the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Better Business Bureau and the National Advertising Review Board (NARB). For example, in 2003 we represented our client Procter & Gamble in an appeal before the NARB of a challenge brought by Kimberly Clark to Procter & Gamble’s advertising for Always® Thin Ultra Pads with Wings, which resulted in a rare reversal by the NARB Panel of the NAD’s prior decision.

Finally, Kramer Levin has also defended several major consumer class actions alleging violations of state consumer fraud laws based on allegedly false advertising. For example, we represented our client Johnson & Johnson Vision Products in defending against a consumer class action concerning Acuvue® brand contact lenses.