Ross M. Weisman, P.C.

Litigation

• Represented Dyson in false advertising litigation with SharkNinja regarding SharkNinja’s claims that its product provided superior pickup versus Dyson’s competing vacuum. Following a two-week jury trial, obtained a jury verdict for Dyson and an award of over $16M. Dyson, Inc. v. SharkNinja Operating LLC and Shark Ninja Sales Co. (N.D. Ill.)
• Counsel to Dyson in false advertising case filed by SharkNinja regarding Dyson’s suction and carpet cleaning claims. Obtained favorable settlement and dismissal of case immediately prior to start of trial. Euro-Pro Operating LLC v. Dyson, Inc. (D. Mass.)
• Represented Verizon in successful effort to obtain a temporary restraining order against Cablevision for defamatory advertising campaign. Also successfully defended against Cablevision’s request for a preliminary injunction over Wi-Fi superiority. Cablevision Systems Corp. v. Verizon New York Inc. (E.D.N.Y.)
• Represented Merisant Company in false advertising lawsuit against McNeil Nutritionals alleging that McNeil misrepresented its Splenda no calorie sweetener product as “natural.” After five-week jury trial, parties reached a confidential settlement after jury requested damages expert reports and a calculator. Merisant Company v. McNeil Nutritionals, LLC. (E.D. Pa.)
• Counsel to Hill’s Pet Nutrition in false advertising case against Nutro Products based on various claims that Nutro’s products contained “no chicken by-products” and included ingredients like those you could “feed your family.” Hill’s also challenged certain superiority claims made by Nutro. After Hill’s was granted a preliminary injunction, in part, and after a subsequent trial, the case resulted in a confidential settlement. Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Inc. v. Nutro Products, Inc. (C.D. Cal.)
• Represented Dyson in false advertising and breach of contract lawsuit against key competitor, Oreck. After succeeding on critical motion for summary judgment and proceeding through fact and expert discovery, parties settled the case. Dyson, Inc. v. Oreck Corp., et al. (E.D. La.)
• Represented DIRECTV in its defense against Comcast’s allegations that DIRECTV’s NFL “Sunday Ticket” ad campaign was false and misleading. Defeated Comcast’s attempt to secure a temporary restraining order during critical pre-NFL-season time period. Shortly thereafter, the parties reached a favorable settlement, and Comcast dismissed the case. Comcast Cable Communications LLC v, DIRECTV, Inc. (N.D. Ill.)
• Represented Dyson in alleging that Bissell’s advertising relating to the filtration performance of its vacuums was false and misleading in violation of the Lanham Act and state unfair competition laws. Obtained summary judgment for client, resulting in favorable settlement. Dyson, Inc. v. Bissell Homecare, Inc. (N.D. Ill.)

NAD and NARB/Other

• Represented maker of infant nutritional product in NAD challenge filed by competitor. Competitor argued that infant nutritional product maker’s claims comparing its human milk fortifier (HMF) to competitor’s HMF were false and misleading. Based on written submissions and meeting with NAD, virtually all claims found to be supported. (Case #6238)
• Represented pet insurance carrier at NAD against competitor based on competitor’s false, misleading and disparaging claims about pet insurance carrier. NAD recommended modifications or the discontinuance of virtually all of competitor’s claims. (Case #6248)
• Counsel to wireless, telecommunications and entertainment service provider in NAD challenge filed by competitor. Competitor argued that provider’s advertising slogan created comparative claims that provider could not support. After NAD and NARB review, virtually all claims found to be substantiated (or puffery). (Case #6212; Panel #248)
• Represented vacuum manufacturer at NAD in challenge by competitor regarding manufacturer’s claims about the superior suction power and runtime of its cordless vacuum. After NAD and NARB decisions, virtually all claims found to be properly substantiated. (Case #6169; Panel #237)
• Counsel to maker of air purifiers in NAD case against key competitor, in which competitor falsely claimed its purifier provided HEPA-level performance. NAD and NARB recommended that competitor’s claims be discontinued. (Case #6151; Panel #233)
• Represented manufacturer of cold and cough medicine in case against competitor for competitor’s claims that its product began symptom relief in “eight minutes.” NAD, and then NARB, recommended claims be discontinued. (Case #5728; Panel #197)
• Represented satellite TV provider in NAD action filed by key competitor, in which competitor challenged provider’s claims about the number of HD channels provider offered and the provider’s superior picture quality. NAD determined the vast majority of the provider’s claims were supported. (Case #5208)
• Counsel to cable company before NAD in two challenges against competing cable companies where cable companies claimed they provided video services through “fiber optic networks,” even though their networks relied upon coaxial cable, not fiber optic cable, to connect to consumers’ homes. NAD recommended that cable companies cease use of challenged claims. (Case #s 5166, 5168)
• Represented maker of sweeteners in NAD challenge against competitor, in which competitor made claims that its sweetener was “more than 99% natural” (based on the sweetener containing 99% natural ingredients by volume), even though the product was primarily sweetened by sucralose. NAD recommended competitor discontinue claims and NARB affirmed NAD’s decision. (Case #5125; Panel #161)
• Counsel to pet food maker in NAD challenge against competitor for competitor’s claims that its pet food products were nutritionally superior and “vet recommended.” NAD recommended claims be discontinued and/or substantially modified. (Case #5045)
• Represented toilet manufacturer in challenge at NAD against key competitor based on competitor claiming it was “The Global Leader in Performance Toilets.” NAD determined that competitor should discontinue claims and, after competitor appealed decision to NARB, successfully handled appeal before NARB panel. (Case #5000; Panel #154)
• Represented pet food manufacturer at NAD in defense of manufacturer’s claims that its products contain “Tested nutrition to promote healthy joint development and enhance mobility by 30 percent in 90 days” and “Precisely balanced nutrition, proven to ensure ideal body weight.” NAD found claims to be fully substantiated. (Case #5012)
• Represented leading consumer products company in Federal Trade Commission (FTC) investigation into the company’s advertising claims for its teeth whitening product. After nearly two years and multiple meetings, FTC closed its investigation without company making any changes to its claims.