## Facts

- Pizza Hut and Papa John’s were competing national pizza chains.
- Papa John’s adopted and federally registered the slogan “Better Ingredients. Better Pizza.” and used it widely in national advertising.
- Papa John’s ran comparative “sauce” and “dough” advertisements contrasting its ingredients and preparation methods with Pizza Hut’s.
- Pizza Hut challenged the slogan and related comparative ads under Lanham Act § 43(a), arguing they implied a provable, overall superiority in pizza quality.
- A jury found the slogan and certain comparative ads false or misleading and likely to deceive consumers.
- The district court concluded the slogan, standing alone, was puffery, but enjoined its use as “tainted” when used with the broader post–May 1997 advertising campaign, and imposed detailed injunctive conditions.

## Issues

1. Whether “Better Ingredients. Better Pizza.”, standing alone, is an actionable misrepresentation of fact or non-actionable puffery under Lanham Act § 43(a).
2. Whether, in context with the comparative sauce and dough campaigns, the slogan conveyed objectifiable and misleading factual claims.
3. Whether Pizza Hut proved that any misleading message was material—i.e., likely to influence consumers’ purchasing decisions.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit reversed the judgment for Pizza Hut, vacated the injunction, and remanded for entry of judgment for Papa John’s.
- The court held the slogan, standing alone, was a vague, subjective superiority claim and therefore non-actionable puffery.
- The court accepted that, when paired with certain comparative ads, the slogan could convey objectifiable and misleading factual messages.
- The court nevertheless held Pizza Hut failed to present evidence that any misleading factual message was material to consumer purchasing decisions, requiring judgment as a matter of law for Papa John’s.
- The court rejected the district court’s “tainting” theory as an insufficient basis to enjoin continued use of an otherwise non-actionable slogan absent proof of all Lanham Act elements, including materiality.

## Legal Principles

- Lanham Act § 43(a) false advertising liability requires more than falsity or misleadingness; the challenged representation must also be material to purchasing decisions.
- “Puffery” includes (1) exaggerated boasting on which no reasonable buyer would rely and (2) generalized claims of superiority so vague they are understood as opinion rather than verifiable fact.
- A slogan that is non-actionable puffery in isolation may, in some contexts, contribute to an overall message that is factual and potentially misleading, but liability still depends on proof of materiality.
- Injunctive relief under the Lanham Act is improper where the plaintiff fails to prove an essential element of the claim, including materiality.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that “Better Ingredients. Better Pizza.” was non-actionable puffery when used alone and that, even assuming the slogan and related comparative ads conveyed misleading factual implications, Pizza Hut’s failure to prove materiality required judgment for Papa John’s and vacatur of the injunction.


Pizza Hut, Inc. v. Papa John's Int'l, Inc., 227 F.3d 489 (5th Cir. 2000)