This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Abbott (P) was a manufacturer of Pedialyte, an oral electrolyte solution to prevent dehydration in infants suffering from acute diarrhea or vomiting. Mead (D) makes a product called Ricelyte. P enjoyed a monopoly in this product area until D introduced its product in 1990. The two products are virtually identical with only their carbohydrate components being different. Both parties promote their products by reference from physicians and nurses who in turn, recommend the products to consumers. D launched a program to convince physicians and nurses to recommend their product over P’s product. P sued claiming violations under 43(a)(2) of the Lanham Act. P also claimed a violation of trade dress under 43(a)(1). P then motioned the court for a preliminary injunction. The court found that P had demonstrated likelihood on succeeding on the merits but that the other three factors favored D. The injunction was denied, and P made an interlocutory appeal under 28 USC 1292(a)(1).

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.