## Facts

- Castrol, a motor oil seller, challenged a Quaker State television commercial under Lanham Act § 43(a) for false advertising.
- The commercial claimed that “tests prove” Quaker State 10W-30 “protects better than any other leading 10W-30 motor oil” during engine start-up and that faster flow meant better protection against start-up wear.
- The commercial visually reinforced a categorical superiority message; after suit was filed, Quaker State altered on-screen text to remove “tests prove” while still asserting superior start-up protection.
- Quaker State relied on test data tied to oil-flow characteristics associated with a particular additive (PMA), while competing oils used a different additive (OCP).
- Castrol contended Quaker State lacked adequately designed tests supporting the broad superiority claim and that flow-rate testing did not establish reduced engine wear, given evidence that residual oil provides protection at start-up.
- The district court found the challenged superiority claim literally false and entered a preliminary injunction barring further airing of the commercial; Quaker State appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court properly granted a preliminary injunction under Lanham Act § 43(a) based on a likelihood that the commercial’s “tests prove” superiority claim was literally false.
2. Whether the evidence supported presuming deception and irreparable harm once literal falsity was shown in comparative advertising.
3. Whether the balance of hardships and public interest supported enjoining continued dissemination of the advertisement.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction.
- The court held Castrol showed a likelihood of success in proving the “tests prove” claim of superior start-up protection was literally false.
- The court agreed that Quaker State’s tests did not substantiate the advertised proposition because they addressed oil flow rather than engine wear and did not justify the sweeping “protects better than any other leading” claim.
- Given likely literal falsity in a comparative ad, the court accepted that consumer deception and irreparable harm could be presumed without consumer survey evidence.
- The court upheld the district court’s findings on irreparable harm, balance of hardships, and the public interest in truthful advertising.

## Legal Principles

- A Lanham Act § 43(a) false advertising claim may be proven by showing an advertisement is literally false, or (if literally true) misleading in context.
- When a challenged statement is literally false, courts may grant relief without requiring evidence of actual consumer deception; consumer survey evidence is not required.
- “Tests prove” claims are establishment claims: the advertiser must possess tests that substantiate the specific performance proposition asserted; if the tests do not support it, the claim is literally false.
- In false comparative advertising, once likely success on literal falsity is established, injury such as harm to reputation and goodwill may be treated as irreparable for preliminary injunctive relief.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a preliminary injunction against a competitor’s commercial because a categorical “tests prove” superiority message lacked test support for the specific claim of better start-up wear protection, making the advertisement likely literally false under Lanham Act § 43(a) and justifying injunctive relief without consumer survey proof.


Castrol, Inc. v. Quaker State Corp., 977 F.2d 57 (2d Cir. 1992)