Injunction Order Church & Dwight v Clorox

8/3/2019 Injunction Order Church & Dwight v Clorox

1/13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - - -- - -- - CHURCH & DWIGHT CO., INC., x

P l a i n t i f f , 11 Civ. 1865 (JSR)- v - OPINION AND ORDER

THE CLOROX COMPANY,Defendant. -------- x

JED S. RAKOFF, U.S.D.J .

By th i s ac t ion , p la in t i f f Churchamong o ther th ings , to pre l iminar i ly enjo in defendant Clorox PetProducts Company ("Clorox") from a i r ing a commercial t ha t makesa l leged ly misleading c la ims about the r espec t ive mer i t s of eachpar t y ' s ca t l i t t e r . On June 17, 2011, the Court held an ev iden t ia ryhear ing on the " lab t e s t " Clorox used to support the cla ims made inth i s commercial . This was followed by subs tant l ega l b r i e f i n g .Having now reviewed these mater ia l s a t l ength , the Court f inds t ha tClorox ' s t e s t i s i n s u f f i c i e n t ly r e l i ab l e to meet the requ i red l ega ls tandards and t ha t the commercial i s 1 ly to cause C & D i r reparab leharm i f no t en jo ined . McNeil-P.C.C., Inc. v. Bris tol -Myers SquibbCo., 938 F.2d 1544, 1549 (2d Cir . 1991). Thus, fo r the reasonsexplained below, the Court gran t s C & D 's reques t fo r a pre l iminaryin junc t ion enjoin ing fu r the r use of the commercial i s sue .

C & D manufactures severa l kinds of c a t litter t ha tincorpora te Arm & Hammer baking soda under th e Arm & Hammer t rademark.

Case 1:11-cv-01865-JSR Document 51 Filed 01/04/12 Page 1 of 13


2/13

Those var i e t i e s include Arm & Hammer Double Duty Clumping L i t t e r("Double Dutyl l ) and Arm & Hammer Super Scoop Clumping L i t t e r ("SuperSCOOpll). Clorox manufactures "Fresh Stepll c a t litter produc ts , whichu t i l i z e carbon ins tead of baking soda as an odor - f igh t ing ingred ien t .

In the Fal l of 2010, Clorox s t a r t ed a i r i ng c e r t a in commercialst ha t immediately preceded the commercial here in dispute . In onecommercial , ca t s were depic ted choosing litter boxes f i l l e d with FreshStep over litter boxes f i l l ed with Super Scoop. Declara t ion of DavidS. Cohen dated March 21, 2011 ("Cohen Decl . lI ) 11 & Ex. 2. Whileth i s was occurr ing , the voiceover explained t ha t "ca t s l ike boxes

. with Fresh Step litter in s ide . because Fresh Step ' sscoopable litter with carbon i s b e t t e r a t e l imina t ing odors than Arm &Hammer." Id . In ano ther commercial , ca t s were f i r s t depic teds tepp ing in to the box conta in ing Super Scoop and then s tepping out ofthe box and choosing the box with Fresh Step. Id . Ex. 3. In Januaryof 2011, Clorox began a i r i ng still ano ther commercial t h a t displayedcats engaging in "c lever" behavior . As the videos played, thevoiceover announced: "Cats a re smart . They can outsmart t h e i rhumans. Thei r canines . Unlock doors . They ' re a l so smart enough tochoose the litter with l e ss odors.1I Id . Ex. 4.

C & D a l l eges t ha t it then commissioned a t e s t to r e p l i c a t e theses i tua t ions and found t ha t of the 158 ca t s t e s t ed , only s ix ca t s - l e ssthan four percent - re j ec ted t h e i r litter box when the litter box was

2

http:///reader/full/odors.1Ihttp:///reader/full/odors.1I


3/13

f i l l ed with Super Scoop. Complaint 40. By c o n t r a s t , e igh t ca t s or f ive percent - a l leged ly re j ec ted a litter box f i l l e d with Clorox ' sFresh Step l i t t e r . Id . As a r e su l t , on January 5, 2011, C & D f i l eda complaint aga ins t Clorox, cla iming t ha t the aforementionedcommercials were l i t e r a l l y fa l se . Cohen Decl . 12. Clorox agreed topermanently discont inue the commercials, id . 13, and C & Dvo lun ta r i ly dismissed the complain t on February 2, 2011.

Sometime around February 14, 2011, Clorox began a i r i ng a newcommercial , the one here in i s sue . Id . 14 & Ex. 6. In t h i scommercial , ca t s are fea tured doing "c lever" th ings and th e voiceoverannounces: "We ge t ca t s . They' re smart . They can outsmart t h e i rhumans. And t h e i r canines ." Then a ca t i s seen en te r ing a litter boxand pawing through the litter as the voiceover cont inues , "Tha t ' s whythey deserve the smartes t choice in l i t t e r . " Id . The commercial thent r a ns i t i ons to a demonstra t ion t h a t displays two l abora to ry beakers .One beaker i s represented as Fresh Step and the bottom of it i s f i l l e dwith a black substance labeled "carbon." The o ther beaker i s f i l l edwith a white substance l abe led "baking soda." Id . While the secondbeaker i s not i de n t i f i e d as any spec i f ic brand of c a t l i t t e r , Arm &Hammer i s the only major c a t litter brand t ha t uses baking soda.

7. Green gas i s then shown f loa t ing through th e beakers and thevoiceover cont inues: "S o we make Fresh Step scoopable litter withcarbon, which i s more e f fec t ive a t absorbing odors than baking soda."The green gas in the Fresh Step beaker then r ap id ly evapora tes while

3



4/13

th e gas l eve l in th e baking soda beaker ba re ly changes . Id . 18.During t h i s dramat iza t ion , smal l t e x t appears a t th e bottom of thescreen informing th e viewer t h a t Clorox ' s c la ims a re " [b ]a sed on [a ]sensory lab t e s t . " a t 19.

C & D l eges t h a t th e new commercial con ta ins seve ra l f a l s emessages, inc lud ing , i n t e r a l i a , t h a t c a t litter product s made withbaking soda do not e l imina te odors wel l and t h a t c a t litter productsmade with baking soda a re l e s s e f f e c t i v e a t e l imina t ing odors thanClorox ' s Fresh Step c a t litter. Complaint 63.

In o rd e r to e s t a b l i sh its en t i t l ement to a pre l iminaryi n junc t ion , C & D must show: "(a) i r r ep a r ab l e harm and (b ) e i t h e r (1)l i ke l ihood of success on the mer i t s o r (2) s u f f i c i e n t l y se r iousques t ions going to the mer i t s to make them a f a i r ground fo rl i t i g a t i o n and a balance o f hardsh ips t i pp ing decidedly toward th epar ty reques t ing the p re l iminary r e l i e f . " Ci t ig roup Global Markets ,Inc . v. VCG Specia l Oppor tun i t i es Master Fund L t d . , 598 F.3d 30, 35(2d Cir . 2010) (quot ing Jackson Dairy , Inc . v. H.P. Hood & Sons, In c . ,596 F.2d 70, 72 (2d Cir . 1 9 7 9 . Success on t h e mer i t s under 43(a)of the Lanham Act requ i re s a demons t ra t ion t h a t the chal lengedadver t i sement i s e i t h e r (1) " l i t e r a l l y f a l s e , i.e., fa l se on itsface , " o r (2) "whi le not l i t e r a l l y f a l s e , . neve r the le s s l i ke ly tomislead o r confuse consumers ." Tif fany (NJ) Inc . v. eBay, I n c . , 600F.3d 93, 112 (2d Cir . 2010) (quot ing Time Warner Cable , Inc . v.DIRECTV, I n c . , 497 F.3d 144, 153 (2d Ci r . 2 0 0 7 . Where, as here ,

4



5/13

sc i en t i f i c or t echn ica l evidence i s sa id to e s t a b l i s h an a dve r t i s e r ' sclaim (a so -ca l led "es tab l i shment c la im") , a p l a i n t i f f can provel i t e r a l f a l s i t y by showing t ha t th e t e s t "did not e s t a b l i s h thepropos i t i on fo r which [ i t was] ci ted" because it i s e i t h e r "nots u f f i c i e n t ly r e l i a b l e to permit a conclusion" o r "simply i r r e l e va n t . "Cast ro l , Inc . v. Quaker Sta te Corp. , 977 F.2d 57, 63 (2d Cir . 1992)Thus, C & D 's l ike l ihood of success on the mer i t s depends upon i t sa b i l i t y to show t h a t Clorox ' s sensory lab t e s t i s "not s u f f i c i e n t lyre l i ab le" o r "s imply i r r e l e va n t . "

To suppor t i t s claim t ha t carbon b e t t e r e l imina te s c a t malodorthan baking soda , Clorox conducted an in-house t e s t ca l l ed th e " Ja rTest . " In th e Ja r Test , Clorox prepared separate con ta ine rs o f: ( i)f r esh ca t feces covered with carboni ( i i ) f resh c a t ur ine covered withcarboni ( i i i ) f resh c a t feces covered with baking sodai ( iv) f resh c a tur ine covered with baking sodaj (v) uncovered f e ces i and (vi)uncovered ur ine . See Declara t ion of Jodi Russe l l da ted March 24, 2011("Russel l Decl .") 11. Afte r l e t t i n g th e sea led con ta ine rs sit fo rtwenty-two to twenty-s ix hours , th e con ta ine rs were placed in th reesensory t e s t i ng booths one conta in ing the carbon samples, onecon ta in ing the baking soda samples, and one conta in ing the uncoveredfeces and ur ine as a con t ro l - and eleven pa ne l i s t s ra t ed the sampleson a 0 to 15 sca le . Id . 12, 14 15. This experiment was repea tedfour t imes , fo r a t o t a l of fo r ty - four samplings . Id . 15. Carbonwas found to reduce odor from 2.72 to 0 while baking soda was found to

5



6/13

reduce odor only from 2.72 to 1.85 . Id., 16. Reducing odor from2.72 to 1.85 represents a 32% decrease , pre c i s e l y the decrease t ha t i srepresented in the demonstra t ion shown in Clorox ' s commercial . Id .

36.Clorox t r a ined the e leven pane l i s t s used in the J a r Test to

evaluate odors on a s pe c i f i c sca le , which i t s exper t witness devised .Id . 13, 15 . According to Clorox, the sensory evalua t ion methodhere employed by Clorox has been reviewed in t ex tbooks and peerreviewed jou rna l s , and i s t aught in more than for ty un ive r s i t i e s i nthe United Sta t e s . See Transc r ip t of June 17, 2011 hear ing ("Tr.lf) a t85:24-86:13. Over the course o f t h e i r t r a i n i ng , pane l i s t s smel ledi den t i ca l smells a t d i f f e r e n t l eve l s of i n t ens i ty in order to developa common metr ic fo r pungency. Id . a t 89:17 22 . Pane l i s t s a l sosmel led d i f f e r en t litter products , both wi th and without c a t

excrement , in order to l ea rn to d iscr iminate between c a t malodor ando the r odors presen t in l i t t e r . Supplemental Decla ra t i on of JodiRussel l da ted March 27, 2011 11. Clorox t aught i t s pane l i s t s t ha t ,when they could not de tec t a ce r t a in ol fac tory s t imul i , they shouldnote t h a t absence by giv ing t h a t odor a r a t ing of zero . See Tr. a t107 :1 -15 . As it tu rned out , a l l e leven pane l i s t s gave a malodorr a t ing of zero whenever ca t excrement was t r ea t ed with carbon,re su l t i ng in a score of zero fo r each of the fo r t y - fou r t r i a l s .

C & D c r i t i c i z e s the r e l i a b i l i t y of the Ja r Test in a t l e a s tth ree r e spec t s . F i r s t , it argues t ha t Clorox ' s commercial broadly

6



7/13

cla ims t ha t Fresh Step c a t litter outperforms C & DIs products ine l imina t ing odor l a claim th e Ja r Test cannot suppor t . Second l itargues t ha t ce r ta in aspec ts of the J a r Test - par t i cu l a r l y the

luniformity of the p a n e l i s t s f ind ings t ha t carbon complete lye l imina tes ca t malodor - are so suspic ious as to render the J a r Testunre l iab le even fo r the narrower propos i t ion t h a t carbon b e t t e re l imina tes odor than baking soda . Third l it argues t ha t th e J a r Tes ti s unre l iab le because it fa i led to use a r a t io sca le to comparedegrees o f malodor . The Court cons iders C & DIs f i r s t tw o c r i t i c i sm sand f inding them meri tor ious has no need to reach the t h i rd .I

C & DIs f i r s t c r i t i c i sm may be e labora t ed as fo l lows . Underth e doc t r ine o f " fa l s i t y by necessary impl icat ion , l I a company's cla imsabout p a r t i c u l a r aspec ts of i t s produc t may necessa r i ly imply moresweeping cla ims about t h a t product , and these implied cla ims may be

" l i t e r a l l y fa l se" wi th in th e meaning of the Lanham Act . See Cast ro lInc . v. Pennzoi l Co., 987 F.2d 939 1 947 (3 d Cir . 1993) ("Theimpl ica t ion i s t ha t Pennzoi l outperforms th e o ther l eading brands withre spec t to p ro tec t ing aga ins t engine f a i l u r e because it outperformsthem in pro tec t ing aga ins t v i scos i ty breakdown, th e cause of enginef a i l u r e . II ) i Time Warner Cable, Inc. v. DIRECTV, Inc . , 497 F.3d 144,158 (2d Cir . 2007) (c i t ing Pennzo i l ) . A cour t must analyze thedisputed message in i t s " f u l l context , l I Time Warner Cable, 497 F.3d a t158 (quoting Pennzoil , 987 F.2d a t 946) I to determine whether i t s"words o r images, considered in context , n eces s a r i l y imply a fa l se

7



8/13

message. II Id . Because an impl ica t ion must be necessary in orde r torender th e commercial ' s c laims fa l se , " i f the language o r graphic i ssuscep t ib le to more than one reasonable i n t e rp r e t a t i on , th eadver t i sement cannot be l i t e r a l l y fa l se . 1I Id .

C & D argues t ha t under the doctr ine of necessary impl ica t ion ,Clorox ' s claims about th e su p e r i o r i t y of carbon to baking sodaneces sa r i ly imply t ha t Fresh Step c a t litter b e t t e r el iminates odorsthan do Arm & Hammer l i t t e r s t ha t use baking soda. While Cloroxresponds t ha t one could reasonably i n t e rp re t i t s commercial as simplycomparing the genera l odor- reduc ing proper t i e s of carbon and bakingsoda, Clorox has not i de n t i f i e d any bas i s fo r be l iev ing t h a t anyconsumer who pays a t t e n t ion to i t s commercial reasonably cares abouthow e f fec t ive ly carbon works compared with baking soda outs ide thecon tex t of c a t litter and competing litter produc ts .

The J a r Test cannot reasonably suppor t the necessaryimpl ica t ion t ha t Clorox ' s litter outperforms C & D's produc t s ine l imina t ing odor in c a t l i t t e r s . As noted above, Clorox sea led th ej a rs of ca t waste fo r twenty-two to twenty-s ix hours before sub jec t ingthem to t e s t i ng . In ac tua l p ra c t i c e , however, ca t s do no t se a l t h e i rwaste, and smel ls of fend as much dur ing th e f i r s t twenty-two hours asthey do af te rwards . Thus, the Ja r Te s t ' s unrea l i s t i c condi t ions sayl i t t l e , i f anything, about how carbon performs in c a t litter inci rcumstances highly r e levan t to a reasonab le consumer. Moreover, tosubs tan t i a t e the commercial ' s impl ied c la ims, the J a r Test must prove

8



9/13

not on ly t h a t carbon e l imina t es odors in open c a t litter (as opposedto sea led j a r s ) , bu t a l so (1) t h a t it outperforms baking soda in t ha tt a sk and (2) t h a t baking soda e l imina t es only th i r ty - two pe rcen t ofodors , the amount by which, in th e commercial , th e gas d i s s i p a t e d i nth e beaker l abe l ed "baking soda." Given t h a t th e J a r Tes t says littleabout how subs tances perform in litter as opposed to j a r s , it canno tposs ib ly suppor t Clorox ' s very s pe c i f i c c la ims wi th regard to litter.Consequently, th e n e c e s sa r i l y con t ra ry impl i ca t ion of Clorox ' scommercials i s l i t e r a l l y fa l se .

C & D 's second c r i t ism i s t h a t f laws in th e methodology ofth e J a r Tes t render its conc lus ions unre l i a b l e . In p a r t i c u l a r , C & Dnotes t h a t the uni formi ty with which pa ne l i s t s found t h a t c a texcrement t r ea t ed with carbon conta ined "zero" malodor i s highlyimplaus ib le , and more l i ke l y r e f l e c t s f laws in t h e i r in -house t r a i n i ngo r ob j e c t i v i t y than any r e l i ab l e r e s u l t . See T r. a t 35:21-36:18.C & D main ta ins t h a t humans a re "no isy ins t ruments" t ha t , fo rneuro log ica l reasons , pe rce ive the exac t same t h ing d i f f e r en t l y a td i f f e r en t t imes and r epo r t the presence o f o l f a c t o r y s t i m u l i evenwhere they do n o t e x i s t . Id . a t 34:14-17; see a l so Dec la r a t ion o fDanie l Ennis da ted Apr i l 11, 2011 21. Thus, given th e va r i a t i oneven among th e same p e r s o n ' s r epo r t s a t d i f f e r e n t t imes , C & D arguest h a t e leven d i f f e r e n t people a lmos t ce r t a in ly would not uniformlyr e p o r t the same exper ience fo r ty four t imes .

9



10/13

C & D fu r the r notes t ha t Clorox ' s own s tud ies suppor t t h i sobserva t ion . Fi r s t , in an i n t e rn a l pane l va l ida t ion t e s t r epor t which involved c a t litter - Clorox /s pa ne l i s t s gave an average malodorscore o f g re a t e r than zero to a box o f litter t ha t admi t t ed lycontained no ca t excrement. See Tr. 129:22-130:2 . Second l in ane a r l i e r i t e ra t i on of the Ja r Tes t l e ighteen percent of t r i a l s resu l t edin a r epor t of some malodor in j a r s of excrement t r ea ted with carbon.Declara t ion of B. Thomas Carr dated Apr i l 51 2011 14 & Ex. A.Third l even Clorox /s exper t conf i rms t h a t "[h]umans l even highlyt r a ined sensory p a n e l i s t s l are 'noisyl measuring ins t ruments .For a v a r i e t y o f phys io log ica l and psycho log ica l reasons humans donot perce ive and r epor t exac t ly th e same value when eva lua t ing thesame sample repeatedly.1I rd . 8.

Clorox responds t h a t th e mere f ac t t ha t humans a re noisyins t ruments does not preclude a uniform ra t ing o f zero where nomalodor was in f a c t presen t . Moreover, according to Clorox l most ofthe s tud ies showing t h a t humans r epor t exper ienc ing s t imu l i even wherenone e x i s t s do not involve t ra ined p a n e l i s t s such as those Cloroxemployed. These arguments misunders tand C & D 's p o in t . Clorox ' s ownevidence acknowledges t ha t humans, even t ra ined pa ne l i s t s , r epor tsmells even when none are presen t . Thus, th e Court agrees wi thC & D 's exper t t h a t it i s highly implaus ib le t ha t eleven p a n e l i s t swould s ck t h e i r noses in j a r s o f excrement and r ep o r t fo r ty - four

10

http:///reader/full/repeatedly.1Ihttp:///reader/full/repeatedly.1I


11/13

independent t imes t h a t they smel led nothing unpleasant . 1 Accordingly,the Cour t concludes t h a t the r e s u l t s of the J a r Test a re "nots u f f i c i e n t ly r e l i a b l e to permit one to conclude with reasonablec e r t a i n t y t ha t they es t ab l i s h ed th e propos i t ion fo r which they werec i t ed ll in Clorox ' s commercial . Cas t ro l , Inc . v. Quaker S ta t e Corp.,977 F.2d 57, 62-63 (2 d Cir . 1992) .

In shor t , because the J a r Test on which Clorox based i t scla ims i s unre l iab le and, even i f it were r e l i a b l e , could not poss ib lysuppor t Clorox ' s implied cla ims about the r e l a t i ve meri t s of carbonand baking soda i n c a t l i t t e r , th e Court f inds Clorox ' s cla ims a rel i t e r a l l y f a l s e . Id . Based on t h i s l i t e r a l f a l s i t y , C & D has metthe requirement of l ike l ihood of success on th e mer i t s .

Having met t ha t requirement , C & D must fu r the r show t ha tfa i lure to enjoin Clorox w i l l cause it i r reparab le harm. Cit igroupGlobal Markets, Inc. v. VCG Spec ia l Oppor tuni t ies Master Fund Ltd . ,598 F.3d 30, 35 (2d Cir . 2010) . Under o lder law, i f an adver t i sementi s l i t e r a l l y fa l se , "the cour t may en jo in the use of the claim withoutre fe rence to th e adve r t i sement ' s impact on th e buying pub l ic . "McNeil-P.C.C., Inc . , 938 F.2d a t 1549 (quoting Coca-Cola Co. v .Tropicana Products , Inc . , 690 F.2d 312, 317 (2d Cir . 1 9 8 2 . More

ITaking th e average f a l s e alarm r a t e of 1 4 ~ from Kyle E.Mathewson e t a l . , To See o r Not to See, 29 J. NEUROSCIENCE 2725,2727 (2009), the s t a t i s t i c a l probab i l i ty of Clorox ' s r e s u l t s i s0 . 1 3 ~ . Even assuming t ha t Clorox ' s t ra in ing and se lec t ion ofp a n e l i s t s reduced th e average fa l se alarm r a t e to (ha l f of theobserved average) th e probab i l i ty of Clorox ' s r e su l t s i s stillonly 4 ~ .

11



12/13

recent ly , the formulat ion has been t ha t " the l ike l ihood of i r reparab leharm may be presumed where th e p la in t i f f demonstra tes a l ike l ihood ofsuccess in showing t ha t the de fendan t ' s comparat ive advert isement i sl i t e r a l l y fa l se and tha t given the na ture of the market, it would beobvious to th e viewing audience t ha t th e adver t i sement i s t a rge ted a tthe p la in t i f f , even though the p l a i n t i f f i s not i de n t i f i e d by name."Time Warner Cable, Inc . v. DIRECTV, Inc . , 49 7 F.3d 144, 14 8 (2d2007). While Clorox argues t ha t the Supreme Court caut ioned inInc . v. MercExchange, L.L.C. , 547 U.S. 388, 393 (2006) , aga ins t theuse o f presumptions in the context of es tab l i sh ing i r reparab le harm,th e Second Circu i t decided Time Warner a f t e r eBay.

In any case , the Court concludes t ha t , presumptionsas ide , C & D has proved a l ike l ihood of i r reparab le harm on th e fac t sof t h i s case . One of the beakers Clorox ' s commercial bore thel abe l "baking soda," and, as noted, C & D i s th e only majormanufacturer of ca t litter t h a t uses baking soda as a deodor iz inging red ien t . Cohen Decl . 7. Consumers shopping fo r c a t litteroverwhelmingly ident i fy baking soda with C & D 's Arm & Hammer c a tl i t t e r produc ts . Id . Fina l ly , th e commerc shares themes withClorox ' s former commercials - e . g . , re fe rence to c a t s ' in te l l igenceand c leverness - reca l l ing those former commercials ' expl it mentionof C & D 's product s . Id . 15. These comparisons are a t l e a s t asd i r e c t as those Time Warner, where th e Court found t h a t viewers ofa commercial t ha t disparaged "cable" in an area in which Time Warner

12



13/13

served as the exc lus ive cable prov ide r would "undoubtedly unders tand"t ha t c r i t i c i sm to apply to Time Warner s pe c i f i c a l l y . 497 F.3d a t 162.

Put simply, Clorox, c loak ing i t s e l f in the au thor i ty of "a labt e s t , " made l i t e r a l l y fa l se claims going to th e h e a r t of one of themain reasons fo r purchasing ca t l i t t e r . In such c i rcumstances , wherethe misrepresenta t ion i s so p l a i n l y mater ia l on i t s face, no de ta i l eds tudy of consumer r eac t i s necessary to conclude i n fe ren t i a l l yt h a t Clorox i s l i ke l y to customers from C & D 's products to i t sown unless the offending commercial i s en jo ined . Thus, C & D hassucces s fu l ly shown a l ike l ihood of i r reparab le harm.

Because C & D shown t ha t it w i l l l ike ly succeed on themeri t s and t h a t it wi l l su f f e r i r reparab le harm if a pre l iminaryin junc t ion i s not gran ted , th e Court hereby gran t s C & D 's reques t fo ra pre l iminary in junc t ion . Spec i f i ca l ly , Clorox i s hereby en jo ined ,immediately, from a i r ing the commercial ques t ion . TheCour t fu r the r d i r e c t s the pa r t i e s to j o i n t l y c a l l Chambers by no l a t e rthan January 6, 2012 to schedule fu r t h e r proceed ings in t h i s case .

SO ORDERED.

Dated: New York, New YorkJanuary 3, 20127" '30 (> .,.,.... ..

13


Injunction Order Church & Dwight v Clorox

Documents

Transcript of Injunction Order Church & Dwight v Clorox