Pom Wonderful LLC v. The Coca Cola Company, and Does 1 through 100
Published: Apr. 23, 2016 | Result Date: Mar. 29, 2016 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 2:08-cv-06237-SJO-MRW Bench Decision – Defense
Court
USDC Central
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Forrest A. Hainline III
(Goodwin Procter LLP)
Matthew D. Moran
(Roll Law Group PC)
Kristina M. Diaz
(Roll Law Group PC)
Defendant
Steven A. Zalesin
(Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler LLP )
Facts
Pom Wonderful LLC sued its competitor, The Coca-Cola Company, for False Advertising under Section 43 of the Lanham Act, False Advertising under Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code, and statutory Unfair Competition under Section 17200 et seq. of the California Business and Professions Code. The court granted partial summary judgment to Coca-Cola on Pom's state law claims, finding them preempted by federal law, and trial proceeded only on Pom's Lanham Act claim.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Pom contended that Coca-Cola falsely represented that the primary ingredients in its Minute Maid Enhanced Pomegranate Blueberry product were pomegranate and blueberry juice when, in fact, the primary ingredients were actually grape and apple juice.
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Coca-Cola denied Pom's allegations and asserted various affirmative defenses.
Result
The jury returned a defense verdict in favor of Coca-Cola.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390