JONES DAY TALKS®: Straight Talk About False Advertising: What Every Lawyer Needs to Know

False advertising cases remain a complicated area of intellectual property law. Jones Day’s Meredith Wilkes, Jessica Bradley, and John Froemming talk about the types of false advertising claims, explain who can sue, describe the available remedies, and review the recent decision in the MillerCoors v. Anheuser-Busch Companies  Super Bowl commercial case.

Play in new window | Download 

SUBSCRIBE TO JONES DAY TALKS®

Subscribe on Apple Podcasts

Subscribe on Android

Subscribe on Google Play

Subscribe on Stitcher

LISTEN TO PREVIOUS PODCASTS

Read the full transcript below:

Dave Dalton:

False advertising claims remain an intriguing area of intellectual property Law. JONES DAY's Meredith Wilkes, Jessica Bradley, and John Froemming Explain the types of false advertising claims, talk about a high profile case involving a Superbowl commercial, discuss how even advertising imagery can be the basis for a claim and once and for all, defining the puffery defense. I'm Dave Dalton, you're listening to JONES DAY TALKS.

Dave Dalton:

Cleveland partner, Meredith Wilkes co-leads JONES DAY's global trademarks, unfair competition and copyright's group. She's a lead trial lawyer that has focused on high stakes trademark, trade dress, trade secret, false advertising, and design patent litigation matters for global brands in federal and state courts for more than 20 years. Jessica Bradley, a Washington based partner, has more than 10 years of experience litigating trademark, trade dress, false advertising, unfair competition, dilution, and copyright cases. She also counsels clients on trademark clearance prosecution and enforcement, including representing clients before the trademark trial and appeal board. And partner John Froemming, also in Washington, is a trial lawyer with 34 years experience in intellectual property and false advertising litigation. John remains undefeated in all his trademark and design trials and district court cases over the past 10 years. He also co-leads JONES DAY's global intellectual property litigation practice.

Dave Dalton:

Meredith, Jessica, John, thanks so much for being here today.

John Froemming:

Thank you.

Meredith Wilkes:

Thanks for having us, Dave.

Dave Dalton:

All right, let's go to Meredith first. Meredith, when we talk about false advertising claims, it really goes back to the Lanham Act, which it was very broad in terms of what it addresses scope. But this was 1946 I believe, signed into law by President Truman, came into effect a year later in '47. Talk about the parts of the act that pertain specifically to false advertising.

Meredith Wilkes:

Absolutely Dave. And you're right, it's been around for a long time. And yet we continue to look back at it and tweak it as is necessary. This term, the Supreme court's going to do that once, if not twice. But we're talking today about what's referred to as 43(a) or 15 U.S.C. 1125(a). and it speaks very broadly, to the use of any word or symbol or device or combination thereof to make false or misleading descriptions of fact, or false or misleading representations of fact and that'll put you on the hook for liability. And really what that's meant to encompass, are statements that you make about your own goods or statements that you would make about someone else's goods. So you can envision how that would have really, really broad implications.

Dave Dalton:

Let's go over to John Froemming for a second. And John, this is your first podcast with us, correct?

John Froemming:

It is Dave, my pleasure.

Dave Dalton:

So far so good, right? Tell your friends, tell your friends.

John Froemming:

I'm already moving up.

Dave Dalton:

John, tell us who can sue under the Lanham Act, who can be the plaintiff here?

John Froemming:

Basically any competitor or anybody else who qualifies as being in what's called the zone of interest. And basically that zone includes any company or a person who has been proximately injured, either economically or by way of harm to reputation, directly as a result of the false advertising.

Dave Dalton:

Okay.

John Froemming:

The Supreme Court has basically said that when deception of consumers causes competitors to withhold trade from some other competitor or somebody within the zone of interest, then that person can generally sue. But the court has been pretty clear in saying that a mere consumer itself, isn't within that zone and can't sue. The court went so far as to say that a consumer who gets hoodwinked into buying something they're disappointed in, might well have some injury in fact, cognizable under article three, like under some state deceptive trade practice statute, but they won't have a claim under the Lanham Act.

Dave Dalton:

Okay. Well, this is for competitors, people playing the same sector, not for consumers then, just to be clear?

John Froemming:

Mainly, but the court also said that you don't have to necessarily be a direct competitor. In fact, in the Lexmark case, the defendant there had counterclaimed, even though it wasn't a direct competitor, but showed that the letters that the plaintiff, Lexmark, had sent to recyclers of toner cartridge, and who had basically bought the counter claimant's chips, claiming that if the counter claimant's chips were used, it would somehow violate the law and infringe Lexmark's IP rights. The court said, "Hey, that's within the zone of interest. Even though they're not direct competitors, per se, there is an alleged reputational injury from disparagement of this nasty letter writing campaign." So that claim was allowed to proceed.

Dave Dalton:

Okay. That certainly makes sense, John, where can these cases be brought? What types of courts would hear a false advertising claim?

John Froemming:

Pretty much any federal court, Dave, where there's personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. It's a little bit different from like a patent infringement claim where the TC Heartland case has cut way back on the choice of forums that plaintiffs have. So generally, these cases tend to get filed where the plaintiff is based where the defendant is based or where there's substantial false advertising having this sort of proximate harm to reputation or to the pocketbook of the competitor or the plaintiff in the zone of interest.

Dave Dalton:

Okay. Let's go to Jessica Bradley for a second. Jessica, can you run down for us the types of false claims and where they apply? There are at least three, correct?

Jessica Bradley:

Yeah, it's actually really two main types and then some courts recognize a third. And the type of falsity you're claiming is actually pretty important, because it's going to control what a plaintiff actually needs to show to prove that the claim is false. So the first type is literal falsity, which is an explicit representation of fact that it's false on its face. It has to be unambiguously false. And for this type of claim, courts are going to presume that deception was caused. So you don't need to produce any, what we call extrinsic evidence, which is usually like a survey. You don't have to do that for literally false claim.

Jessica Bradley:

So the second type is implied falsity. And this is a claim that on its face is either literally true or ambiguous, but is misleading in context. So here, with an implied falsity claim, a plaintiff has to present extrinsic evidence, usually in the form of a survey or some other evidence that consumers took away a false message. And then the last type of falsity, is falsity by necessary implication. It's currently accepted by some courts, not all courts. It's where you have words or images and when they're considered in context, they necessarily imply a false message. It's a subspecies of literal falsity. So it comes with the same benefit that you don't have to have a survey or any other evidence. Deception is presumed.

Dave Dalton:

Okay. You talked about implied falsity cases and we've just seen the resolution of a big one. And we'll get to that in a second. But tell me about Millercoors V. Anheuser-Busch companies. That was a headline grabber. Superbowl 53, you sports fans, was sort of the backdrop for all this. New England 13, L.A. three, if I recall. Jessica talk about the case and what was alleged by Millercoors, now known as Molson Coors.

Jessica Bradley:

So yeah. Who doesn't love a good Superbowl commercial? And that's how this case started. At least for me, that is my favorite part because I'm not a huge sports fan. So Superbowl commercials, big outlays of money, wide distribution. So bud light came out with a commercial during the Superbowl, and it had a medieval knight theme. It featured these knights attempting to deliver a barrel of corn syrup, starting with the Bud Light kingdom and Bud Lite didn't need it because their beer isn't made with corn syrup and then continuing on to Coors Lite. And Miller's Lite kingdom whose beers do use it. So the key claims that Miller Coors had an issue with here, were statements in both these commercials and then billboards and other forms that Miller Lite and Coors Lite were made with or brewed with, or that they used corn syrup, or on the other that Bud Lite has no corn syrup or it had a 100% less corn syrup.

Jessica Bradley:

And where the implied falsity came in, was Miller Coors was asserting that the ads, when viewed as a whole, misled consumers into believing that Miller Lite and Coors Lite and other products actually contain corn syrup and that this is like unhealthy or inferior to Bud Lite. So while Miller Coors did use corn syrup when they brew their beer, the corn syrup is cooked off, so to speak, and it is not in the final product. Interestingly enough, Miller Coors does list corn syrup as an ingredient for both Miller Lite and Coors Lite on their website, or they did right up until shortly before this case was brought.

Dave Dalton:

Conveniently, right?

Jessica Bradley:

Yeah.

Dave Dalton:

Okay. Well, once in a while here at JONES DAY TALKS, we catch a break. And we caught a break Meredith Wilkes because the Seventh Circuit just ruled on this case on May one. What was the court's decision, and are there any particular takeaways you'd like to highlight?

Meredith Wilkes:

Well, I always say that I'd rather be lucky than good. Right, Dave?

Dave Dalton:

Yup. Absolutely.

Meredith Wilkes:

So yeah, we did. We caught a break.

Dave Dalton:

I'm living proof.

Meredith Wilkes:

In a five-page opinion, the Seventh Circuit said a lot without having to say very much. This reminds us as advocates, that how the issue is characterized can really be outcome determinative. And the Seventh Circuit said that there was no false advertising here. That Budweiser had not engaged in any false advertising at all, reversing substantial portions of what the lower court had found. It took a while for it to get to the Seventh Circuit, because there were a bunch of different procedural issues that took place between the trial court's ruling and when it got to the Seventh Circuit. But the court said, and the question for the court was essentially, whether their beer is made with corn syrup and ours isn't, does that constitute false advertising? And the court said, "No."

Meredith Wilkes:

And Jessica alluded to this in her summary of the case. It reminds me of something I was taught a long time ago that, when you point the finger, there's always three pointing right back at you. And that's exactly what happened here. When your own ingredient list contains corn syrup, it's hard to say that what the other guy said about you, isn't true. The ingredients in beer, as I'm sure folks can appreciate, maybe sometimes when you make something and it doesn't necessarily end up in the finished product... Right? So the finished beer that you're drinking doesn't contain corn syrup in it, but it was fermented and it was fermented with corn syrup. And so the court said, this was not false advertising, implied or otherwise. And so now the case is going to go back to the trial court for some cleanup type issues. I don't think there's going to be much left here.

Meredith Wilkes:

One of the interesting things for me at least, was that there were I think a couple of different implied claims here that the Seventh Circuit doesn't really talk about. Because it disposes of the issue readily by saying that everyone's making this far too complicated, much more complicated than it needs to be, and the issue is simply, "Their beer is made with corn syrup and ours isn't, is that true or is that impliedly false?" But there are some implications about the connection between corn syrup and high-fructose corn syrup. Right? There's a lot of hubbub out there about how maybe that's unsafe, that's unhealthy. And there were possibly some implied claims, if you looked at the ad campaign, about trying to draw the connection in consumers' minds between corn syrup and high-fructose corn syrup. I think there was probably some implied health claims that the Budweiser beer is somehow healthier for you because it's made with rice instead of this high fructose corn syrup. But none of that shows up in the five pages from the Seventh Circuits. It can be a cautionary tale and a very interesting decision to be sure.

Dave Dalton:

I remember when this happened, and this wasn't front page news necessarily, but I remember when this case went down and my first reaction was, "Are they overestimating the sophistication of your particular beer drinker?" Who's going to really know? But I guess they spent a lot of resources pursuing this, so we'll see what happens next. Meredith you always send me notes over before we do these programs and I always appreciate that. So I'm going to shift the focus for just a second. You mentioned, you said not just words, images can be the basis for a false advertising claim. What exactly does that mean? I know what it probably means, but what does that mean? And could you give us an example, perhaps?

Meredith Wilkes:

A picture's worth a thousand words. Right, Dave?

Dave Dalton:

Yup.

Meredith Wilkes:

The definition that we talked about at the beginning of the segment referred to words, symbols, devices, and any combination thereof. That's where we get sort of this literal definition, in terms of being able to make images actionable. I think over time, advertisers have realized that creating consumer awareness can be done as much with words as it can with pictures. And sometimes pictures can be even more persuasive or even more damning, depending on which side of the equation you're sitting. And the imagery issue arises because of the type of claim that Jessica referred to, about the necessary application or the implied claims. That's where we see these cases arise.

Meredith Wilkes:

Some of the more famous ones involve some litigation about 10 years ago, with Gerber's fruit juice, the fruit juice snacks. There were pictures on the packaging with oranges and peaches and strawberries and cherries. But when you went to that ingredient list, that's another course, we found that it consisted purely of white grape juice. And so the court found that, you were making an applied claim that these snacks had oranges and peaches and strawberries and so that imagery sunk the ship, so to speak, in that case.

Meredith Wilkes:

You can imagine how it also happened in television ad commercials. And one of the more famous ones involves orange juice, where the commercial shows, squeezing these oranges and making this beautiful juice into glasses and then it pouring out of a carton. When in fact, the stuff that was in that carton, was actually frozen and pasteurized didn't really have any fresh orange juice in it. So that's where you can see how these images create messages that don't appear anywhere in writing. And yet still, you can be on the hook for your visual depiction without saying a word.

Dave Dalton:

Yeah. Absolutely. And as you put it, an image can be much more powerful and compelling than text or words, that's for certain. Let's go back to John for a second. John, can we talk about the types of comparative advertising claims? Evidently an advertisement does not have to specifically name a competitor in order to be a form of false comparative advertising. Is that correct?

John Froemming:

Correct again, for 20 Dave.

Dave Dalton:

I'll take it.

John Froemming:

To answer your second question first, if particularly in a sort of two horse market, if there are two big players in a market and one of them is advertising about the other guy or making references that appear to imply a reference to a competitor, then those sorts of claims are likely to be interpreted by the courts as comparative advertising claims. One of the main ones goes back to 2007 when Time Warner sued DIRECTV. It was essentially a cable versus dish battle in the New York metropolitan area. So it was pretty clear to any reasonable listener that the claims by the one were really criticizing the other. That doesn't work quite as well in a market that's more than two players. But you can still get into hot water if you make global claims that are effectively saying, "I'm superior," or "I'm better than the competition," or, "Unlike others," even go back to the old toothpaste commercial, "Unsurpassed in reducing new cavities," those imply essentially a comparative claim and those can be actionable.

Dave Dalton:

Okay. How does one go about proving falsity of the two types of comparative advertising claims? I guess these are tests prove ads and better than claims. How do you go about proving that?

John Froemming:

Yeah. Differently, Dave. The one category, as you said, is really tests prove claims, known as establishment claims, or the rest, or sort of non-tests proved claims. With respect to the garden variety, comparative advertising claim that X is superior or better than, or at least at parity. Then the plaintiff bears the normal burden of proof. If it's a literal falsity claim, the plaintiff meets its burden by showing that the claim is literally and unambiguously false. If the claim is an implied falsity, that is if there's some ambiguity to the claim, then the plaintiff has to come forward with some form of extrinsic evidence, typically in the form of a survey to show that the relevant group of consumers really does take away a false message. So essentially the plaintiff has to show that the defendant was wrong, that the false comparative claim of superiority or parody is false.

John Froemming:

If you shift though, to the tests prove context, the burden arguably becomes a little easier for the plaintiff. Okay?

Dave Dalton:

Okay.

John Froemming:

The tests prove scenario, the classic is the scientist on TV in the white lab coat holding up the test tube and saying that tests show that our motor oil has better viscosity than X competitors oil. We're all familiar with that. And the tests prove claim again, can be implied, but it has to be a fairly explicit reference to relying on actual testing. Right? And in that context, the plaintiff really can win in one of two ways. The burden in effect, shifts to the defendant to show that the tests which they cite as the support for the proposition, either were not reliable or that even if you assume the test was reliable, that the data really doesn't support the full breadth of the proposition that's being advertised. Okay?

Dave Dalton:

Oh, okay. Yeah.

John Froemming:

The courts have gone on to say, "Look, yeah, it's easier for a plaintiff to show falsity in a tests prove context, but they have to do more than just show that the tests are unpersuasive or that you've got a better test. You can't just have a critique or expose alleged methodological weaknesses. You really need to show as a plaintiff on a tests prove claim, that the test is really unreliable or that even if it's reliable, it just doesn't go the full distance to support sufficiently, the full breadth of the claim.

Dave Dalton:

Well, good. Great summation, John. Thanks. Let's move over to Jessica for a second. Jessica talk about how the concept of materiality comes into play with these claims.

Jessica Bradley:

Sure. So in order to be actionable, the claim that's at issue, it has to be one that is likely to influence consumer purchasing decision. And this could come into play in two different ways. Is the claim about something that consumers actually care about? So for example, there was a case in the Second Circuit, and the challenge claim at issue was that basketball scores were direct from the arena. And it turns out, the scores actually came from broadcasts and not someone sitting in the arena and taking down the scores. But what consumers really cared about, was that they were obtaining up to the minute scores. They were indifferent to the method by which they got them. So that claim was not material and therefore not actionable as false advertising.

Dave Dalton:

Makes sense.

Jessica Bradley:

So one other way, and this came up in one of our cases, that materiality can come into play, is did the consumer actually have a chance to be exposed to the claim before they made their decision to purchase. That might seem self-evident, but we had a case where the challenge claim at issue was on the box, the packaging that the product came in. But when the product launched, you could only buy the product online and the website didn't have the claim. So nobody saw the claim until after they purchased it and the box showed up at their house.

Dave Dalton:

Right. Okay.

Jessica Bradley:

So at least for that period of time, no liability, because no ability to influence the purchasing decision.

Dave Dalton:

Right. No blood, no foul in that case.

Jessica Bradley:

Yeah.

Dave Dalton:

Let's move back to Meredith for a second. Meredith, let's talk about injuries to the plaintiff. How are they identified and how are they measured?

Meredith Wilkes:

So when we're talking about a false advertising case, injury is never presumed for a plaintiff. The plaintiff is going to have to show in some way, shape, or form, and John alluded to this when he was talking about who had standing to sue, you're going to have to show in some way, shape, or form that there's been causation, that it's caused harm to you as a plaintiff. And typically, that can be done in terms of lost sales or damage to reputation. But the way you do it, I think, turns on two different factors that we look at when we're representing plaintiffs. And in the first one, we like to look at as, who is the defendant. Because the claims do not have to be against direct competitors. They can be against indirect competitors. So then when you're doing that, you're looking at what the market is. Is this a two seller market, as John referred to? Because then it's much easier to show diverted sales. But if it's a crowded market, you have a bigger obstacle.

Dave Dalton:

Sure.

Meredith Wilkes:

But the other issue that I look at also, is, what is the advertisement. You've heard from Jessica and from John, that there's a bunch of different types of claims that can be the basis for your false advertising suit. And the ads don't have to be directed to ultimate consumers. They only have to be directed to people who are influencing purchasing decisions. And then you look at the content. Is the plaintiff's specifically called out in the advertisement? That's going to make your causation a little bit easier to prove, that their actions approximately caused the loss to you. It's much easier to prove.

Meredith Wilkes:

But if there's no reference to you or there's a vague reference to you as a plaintiff, it's going to be a little bit tougher to prove. These cases can be really significant when you're dealing with the literal falsity or a really substantial false by implication type of case. You've got short term issues in terms of hurting market share or preventing market entry and diverting sales. And then you can also have long-term significant damage to reputation, which is also a way in which to prove the injury that's required to make your case.

Dave Dalton:

That's got to be a tough one, damage to reputation. I'm sure there are cases where it's just so blatant and apparent that you could point and say, "Yeah, this caused our sales to crater or caused people not apply to work at our company," that kind of thing. But I think generally Meredith, isn't that more difficult to prove?

Meredith Wilkes:

It really is, Dave. It's the intangible, irreparable harm type stuff that unfortunately happens over time. So by the time you have a lot of evidence that it's taken place, it could be too late. Yes, it is incredibly difficult.

Dave Dalton:

Geez, you're right. The horse is out of the barn, as they used to say, the damage was done. Again, I'm referring to the notes that you were all kind enough to supply me before. John, I see the term puffery defense. It comes up in these conversations quite a bit. How is puffery defined and is that a kind of activity that's actionable?

John Froemming:

Sure. Dave, can I just go back for a second to highlight Meredith's good point? Something else to keep in mind on the harm, particularly in a comparative advertising context, is that while the FTC has come out and said explicitly that sometimes comparative advertising, when it's truthful, can be very pro-competitive. If you've got a less expensive product, particularly if it's a commodity, and you advertise your lower price, that's good information that there's no reason consumers shouldn't have. That's useful in their decision-making. Right? But there are plenty of judges, particularly older ones who in effect, might place a higher burden on the advertiser who is talking in explicit comparative terms. So it's a great point that Meredith was alluding to.

John Froemming:

Back on the puffery, it's essentially defined as a statement that can't be proven true or false. Right? And it's a little bit of a technical term. Many of us initially thought of puffery as an overblown statement by the sleazy used car salesman, right? "The best car ever made." Those sorts of outlandish statements do fall under the rubric of puffery, which really aren't actionable. But it's really a lot more than that in the Lanham Act context. The Lanham Act essentially prohibits certain false or misleading descriptions of fact or false or misleading representations of fact, by the terms of 43(a). Right? So the focus is really on, is the statement concrete enough that it can be proven true or false. So yes, hyperbole can't be broad statements, like America's Favorite Pasta or World's Best Beer tend to fall into that category of statements that are subjective or just can't be proven or disproven. Right? But a lot of it depends on context, whether a statement is deemed puffery or not.

John Froemming:

Take the pizza example, right? In the pizza contest, Papa John's advertised, "Better ingredients, better pizza." And that claim in and of itself was dismissed as non-actionable puffery. But Papa John went on in a number of its at least impliedly comparative TV ads, to add more facts and context that rendered related, but more expanded claims, not puffery and thus, fair game. Ultimately, Papa John's got out of the case. But they had a sauce campaign for example, where they asserted their sauce was made from fresh vine ripened tomatoes while its competitors, re: Pizza Hut, make their sauce from remanufactured tomato paste. And during their dough campaign, Papa John's stated that it used clear filtered water, I suppose, in contrast to opaque, filtered water to make its pizza dough while the "biggest chain" used, "Whatever came out of the tap."

Dave Dalton:

Sure.

John Froemming:

Okay? There were also yeast claims, but these more detailed claims were deemed potentially actionable and not mere puffery. The good news under the puffery law for defendants, is if the challenge claim really sounds like it's not concrete enough to be proven true or false, frequently, defendants can get those claims thrown out on a motion to dismiss without having to spend a lot of money and go all the way to summary judgment, if not trial.

Dave Dalton:

Sure. Well, I'm always very careful about using terms I don't fully understand on this show, but it almost sounds like what they used to call the reasonable man test, reasonable person test... I forgot which movie it was, I think it was Elf with Will Ferrell, the Christmas movie, he walks into a coffee shop in New York and there's a sign on the window that says World's Best Coffee. And he looks at the guy behind the counter and says, "Congratulations," and the guy goes, "For what?" So I guess is puffery something that it's kind of easy to recognize? You're a reasonable person, it's like, of course it's not the most popular pizza in the universe, but we'll give them that one because it's advertising and no one believes it. Is that accurate?

John Froemming:

It is in the classic case. I think the Will Ferrell example is a pretty clear one and that's a great recollection. And there've been other claims, the one by Junk Removers, "Wave your hand and the junk disappears," with the magic sounds in the background. It's pretty clearly hyperbole. But it's funny, a number of these cases tend to be pretty subtle and whether the claim is deemed puffery or not, can depend a lot on the context. So yes, if you're talking about an elf, you're probably pretty safe opining that it's puffery. But other times, you got to look past the elf.

Dave Dalton:

Excellent. No doubt. All right. Let's wrap this up by talking about remedies. Jessica, what sort of relief is typically possible for the plaintiff in a false advertising claim?

Jessica Bradley:

The types of relief are generally injunctions and monetary relief, so the types of relief you find in a lot of cases. There are some interesting possibilities. So on the injunction side, separate and apart from ordering a defendant to stop the advertising, there are some courts who have said that in addition, or instead of, the defendant actually has to do a corrective advertising campaign to correct the misimpression that was caused by its false advertising. So you don't see it a ton, but it's an interesting way to offer a remedy to the plaintiff.

Jessica Bradley:

The monetary side can show your actual damages, which can be, for a plaintiff, hard. As we were talking about before, it can be hard to show the actual amount of damage that was caused to you. But you also have the option of seeking defendant's profits from the false advertising campaign. There has to be a connection between the profits you're seeking and the false advertising campaign. You don't just get all of the money the defendant ever made.

Dave Dalton:

Right.

Jessica Bradley:

Interestingly here too, on the flip side, there are courts that have awarded plaintiffs the amount of money it would cost the plaintiff to do a corrective advertising campaign. So for the plaintiff to go out there and run a campaign, correcting the false statements that have previously been made.

Dave Dalton:

Okay. So there's potential for relief out there.

Meredith Wilkes:

Dave, to follow on-

Dave Dalton:

Please go ahead, Meredith.

Meredith Wilkes:

Jessica's comments. Oh, sorry. To follow on Jessica's comments about the remedies that are available, Supreme Court just recently decided its Romag decision, which held that under the Lanham Act, under section 43(a), willfulness is not a prerequisite to get or disgorge a defendant's profits. It's a factor to be considered, but it's not an absolute prerequisite. So that'll be a game changer in some of the circuits where you had to show willful false advertising to get defendant's profits. That's no longer the case. Now it's a factor to be considered, but it's not a prerequisite.

Dave Dalton:

Which case is that again, Meredith?

Meredith Wilkes:

The Romag Fasteners case, Supreme Court just decided it.

Dave Dalton:

We talked about that before.

Meredith Wilkes:

Yes, we did.

Dave Dalton:

Yes, okay. Yeah. I knew it sounded familiar. So there you go. Another development, no extra charge listeners. All right. Awesome. Hey, great show today. Thanks so much for the time. This is an interesting area of the law. Lots of things to watch. Great program. So I thank you all for being here. Let's stay in touch. Meredith, you and I talk a lot. John, hope to have you on again soon and also you, Jessica. So you all take care and thanks so much for being here today.

Meredith Wilkes:

Thanks for having us, Dave.

John Froemming:

Thank you.

Jessica Bradley:

Thanks.

Dave Dalton:

For complete biographies and contact information for Meredith, Jessica, and John, and for information on the firm's intellectual property practice, please visit jonesday.com. And while you're there, visit our insights page for publications, newsletters, videos, blogs, and more podcasts. Subscribe to JONES DAY TALKS at Apple Podcasts and wherever else podcasts can be found. As always, thanks for listening. I'm Dave Dalton. We'll talk to you next time.

Speaker 5:

Thank you for listening to JONES DAY TALKS. Comments heard on JONES DAY TALKS should not be construed as legal advice regarding any specific facts or circumstances. The opinions expressed on JONES DAY TALKS are those of lawyers appearing on the program and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. For more information, please visit jonesday.com.