How A Dairy Campaign Went Sour Under The Lanham Act
By Randy Miller and Kevin Weigand ( August 3, 2017, 11:57 AM EDT) -- Eighty eight percent of consumers are willing to pay more for healthier foods. Manufacturers have responded by focusing marketing campaigns on the health and safety benefits of their products, often at the expense of their competitors. But when Arla Foods portrayed a seven-year-old girl defining a common hormone used to increase milk production in cows as "weird stuff" akin to a "six-eyed monster" with "razor-sharp teeth" and electric fur, a Wisconsin federal judge decided the ad went too far and would likely mislead consumers. Despite Arla's reliance on a small disclaimer and "scientific debate" over the health and safety of dairy products made from cows treated with rBST, the court enjoined Arla's campaign, finding it was likely to mislead consumers into thinking rBST was unsafe, unhealthy, weird and "altogether something you should not feel good about feeding your family."...
Law360 is on it, so you are, too.
A Law360 subscription puts you at the center of fast-moving legal issues, trends and developments so you can act with speed and confidence. Over 200 articles are published daily across more than 60 topics, industries, practice areas and jurisdictions.