## Facts

- American Home Products Corp. (AHP) manufactured Anacin (aspirin-based OTC analgesic) and ran comparative advertisements explicitly naming Tylenol (acetaminophen-based), made by Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary McNeil Laboratories (McNeil).
- AHP sought a declaratory judgment that its comparative advertisements were not false or misleading.
- McNeil counterclaimed under Lanham Act § 43(a), alleging false and deceptive comparative advertising.
- The challenged advertisements were found to convey, to a substantial portion of consumers, that:
  - Anacin provided better pain relief than Tylenol generally.
  - Anacin’s superiority was because it reduced inflammation.
  - Anacin reduced inflammation associated with specific conditions referenced in the advertisements.
- The district court treated the advertisements as ambiguous and relied on consumer surveys and other evidence of audience understanding.
- After weighing medical/scientific evidence, the district court found key superiority and anti-inflammatory messages false or not adequately supported and enjoined further use of the challenged claims.
- The district court declined to enjoin alleged additional implied messages (faster pain relief than Tylenol; no stomach harm), finding they were not reliably communicated to consumers.

## Issues

1. Whether AHP’s comparative advertisements, as understood by consumers, were false or misleading under Lanham Act § 43(a) regarding superiority and anti-inflammatory claims versus Tylenol.
2. Whether the factfinder could use consumer survey evidence to determine the message of allegedly ambiguous advertising.
3. Whether the injunction complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d) and whether its scope should be narrowed (AHP) or expanded to additional implied claims (McNeil).

## Decision

- The Second Circuit largely affirmed the district court’s finding that AHP’s comparative advertisements violated Lanham Act § 43(a).
- The court upheld the district court’s reliance on consumer survey evidence to determine the advertisements’ conveyed meaning where the ads were ambiguous.
- The court agreed that the superiority and anti-inflammatory messages were properly enjoined because the claims were false or unsubstantiated and functioned together in the advertising.
- The court rejected McNeil’s request to extend the injunction to additional alleged implied messages (faster relief; no stomach harm), deferring to the district court’s factual findings on consumer takeaways.
- The court concluded the injunction was sufficiently definite under Rule 65(d), while making limited refinements to improve clarity without vacating injunctive relief.

## Legal Principles

- Under Lanham Act § 43(a), liability may rest on advertising that is literally true yet misleading, where reliable extrinsic evidence shows consumers receive a materially false message.
- When an advertisement is ambiguous, the factfinder may consider consumer surveys and other evidence to determine the message actually conveyed to the audience.
- Comparative superiority and scientific-sounding performance claims that influence consumer choice must be truthful and supported; claims shown false or not adequately supported may be enjoined.
- Injunctions in false-advertising cases must be specific enough to give fair notice of prohibited conduct under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d), but they may target the misleading claim context rather than every conceivable interpretation.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit upheld an injunction under Lanham Act § 43(a) against Anacin advertisements that, as consumers understood them, falsely or without adequate support claimed superiority over Tylenol based on anti-inflammatory effects, while declining to broaden relief to additional implied messages not shown to be perceived by consumers.


Am. Home Prods. Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, 577 F.2d 160 (2d Cir. 1978)