Eli Lilly and Co. v. Arla Foods, Inc.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting plaintiffs’ motion for issuance of preliminary injunction in Lanham Act action seeking issuance of preliminary injunction to stop defendants’ advertisement campaign that, according to plaintiffs, made false and misleading suggestion that milk containing rbST artificial growth hormone was unwholesome, after Dist. Ct. found that plaintiffs had demonstrated reasonable likelihood for prevailing on merits of case. Plaintiffs need not present surveys or other hard evidence of actual consumer confusion at preliminary injunction phase of case, and harm arising out of subject advertisement campaign was traceable to defendants, since: (1) plaintiffs manufactured only FDA-approved rbST supplement on market; and (2) plaintiffs presented evidence that major cheese producer decided to cease using milk from rbST-treated cows based, in part, on defendants’ advertisement campaign. Moreover,