## Facts

- Abbott Laboratories manufactured Pedialyte, an over-the-counter oral electrolyte solution used to prevent dehydration in infants with acute diarrhea or vomiting.
- Abbott had been essentially the sole U.S. producer in this market until Mead Johnson introduced a competing product, Ricelyte, in 1990.
- Pedialyte was glucose-based; Ricelyte used rice-syrup solids.
- Mead launched Ricelyte with a marketing campaign asserting that Ricelyte’s rice-based formulation was superior to Pedialyte.
- Abbott alleged Mead’s superiority claims were false or misleading and lacked adequate scientific support.
- Abbott also alleged trade dress infringement, claiming Ricelyte’s packaging was designed to mimic Pedialyte’s overall look and cause consumer confusion.
- Abbott sued under Lanham Act § 43(a) and moved for a preliminary injunction seeking to stop or modify the challenged advertising and, in some requested forms, to require recall or renaming.
- The district court denied preliminary relief, reasoning largely that the requested injunction would effectively remove Mead from the market, harming competition and the public interest.
- Abbott took an interlocutory appeal from the denial of preliminary injunctive relief.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court applied the correct preliminary-injunction standard to Abbott’s Lanham Act false advertising and trade dress claims, including likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of harms, and public interest.
2. Whether the district court erred by treating the possibility that an injunction could eliminate Mead from the market as a near-dispositive reason to deny preliminary relief.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit vacated the order denying the preliminary injunction and remanded.
- The court held that the district court gave disproportionate weight to preserving Mead’s market presence rather than applying the traditional preliminary-injunction factors to the evidentiary record.
- The court directed the district court to promptly commence a full trial on the merits and to reconsider preliminary relief using the correct equitable framework.
- The court did not itself impose specific injunctive terms.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction requires consideration of likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm absent relief, balance of harms, and public interest.
- In Lanham Act competitor cases, a showing that challenged advertising is false or misleading commonly supports a presumption of irreparable harm because marketplace effects can be difficult to measure.
- The public interest in competition does not override the Lanham Act’s goal of truthful advertising; competition protected by the statute presupposes accurate representations to consumers.
- A court errs when it denies preliminary relief by effectively treating a competitor’s continued participation in the market as controlling, without weighing evidence of likely falsity, consumer harm, and harm to the plaintiff’s goodwill.
- Trade dress claims at the preliminary stage are evaluated within the same equitable framework, including likelihood of confusion and related harm.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit required the district court to reapply the preliminary-injunction factors in Abbott’s Lanham Act false advertising and trade dress dispute, rejecting an approach that prioritized keeping a new entrant in the market over assessing likely deception, harm to goodwill, and consumer protection, and it remanded for prompt trial and reconsideration of interim relief.


Abbott Labs. v. Mead Johnson & Co., 971 F.2d 6 (7th Cir. 1992)