## Facts

- ALPO Petfoods, Inc. and Ralston Purina Co. competed in the puppy-dog food market and sued each other under Lanham Act § 43(a) for false or misleading advertising.
- Ralston advertised that its “Puppy Chow” products could lessen the severity of canine hip dysplasia (CHD), a debilitating joint condition.
- The trial court found Ralston’s CHD-related claims conveyed a message of scientifically established benefit without adequate empirical substantiation.
- ALPO advertised that its puppy food contained “the formula preferred by responding vets two to one over the leading puppy food.”
- The trial court found ALPO’s “two to one” veterinarian-preference claim was not supported by reliable survey design or methodology.
- After a lengthy bench trial, the trial court enjoined both parties from making similar claims and ordered corrective statements.
- The trial court awarded ALPO $10.4 million under Lanham Act § 35(a), using Ralston’s CHD-related advertising expenditures as a proxy for benefit and doubling the figure to reflect harm.
- The trial court awarded ALPO attorneys’ fees, but did not make an express finding that Ralston acted willfully or in bad faith.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court clearly erred in finding that Ralston’s CHD advertising and ALPO’s veterinarian-preference advertising violated Lanham Act § 43(a).
2. Whether § 35(a) permitted awarding ALPO $10.4 million in “profits” (based on advertising expenditures and doubled) without findings tying the amount to actual profits, actual damages, causation, or willfulness/bad faith.
3. Whether the case was “exceptional” under § 35(a) so as to justify an attorneys’ fee award to ALPO.
4. Whether the permanent injunction and corrective-statement requirements were overbroad and required narrowing.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the liability rulings that both parties engaged in false or misleading advertising in violation of Lanham Act § 43(a).
- The court vacated the $10.4 million monetary award to ALPO and remanded for a redetermination consistent with § 35(a) and equitable limits on profits/damages.
- The court reversed the award of attorneys’ fees to ALPO because the record lacked findings supporting “exceptional case” treatment.
- The court upheld injunctive relief in principle but remanded to narrow and tailor the injunction and corrective measures to the specific adjudicated misrepresentations.

## Legal Principles

- Under Lanham Act § 43(a), advertising can be actionable when claims lacking adequate empirical support nonetheless communicate a proven scientific or professional-validation message likely to mislead.
- Appellate review gives substantial deference to trial-court factual findings after a bench trial; findings supported by record evidence are not set aside as clearly erroneous.
- Monetary relief under Lanham Act § 35(a) is “subject to the principles of equity” and must be tied to evidentiary findings of actual harm, unjust gain, and causation; it cannot function as punishment.
- Disgorgement of a defendant’s profits generally requires a principled equitable justification and commonly depends on willful or bad-faith conduct or a demonstrable unjust-enrichment rationale.
- Advertising expenditures are not automatically recoverable as “profits” or “damages”; any proxy measure must bear a plausible relationship to marketplace harm or unjust gain and must be supported by the record.
- Enhanced monetary awards and fee shifting require statutory and equitable support; attorneys’ fees under § 35(a) require an “exceptional case,” typically grounded in deliberate or bad-faith misconduct.
- Injunctions in false advertising cases must be narrowly tailored to prevent repetition of the proven false or misleading claims without unnecessarily restricting lawful, substantiated advertising.

## Conclusion

The court upheld findings that both competitors violated Lanham Act § 43(a) through misleading puppy-food advertising, but it set aside a large profits-based award and fee shifting as unsupported by required findings and record proof, and it required the injunction and corrective measures to be narrowed to the specific false claims.


ALPO Petfoods, Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co., 913 F.2d 958 (D.C. Cir. 1990)