Professional Experience

Mr. Edelstein is one of the leading advertising and marketing lawyers in the United States.  He represents clients in all areas of advertising and marketing law.  Mr. Edelstein has developed a well-earned reputation for the numerous successes he has achieved on behalf of leading companies involved in false advertising challenges before the National Advertising Division (NAD) and the National Advertising Review Board (NARB) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, the primary self-regulatory bodies of the advertising industry; the television networks; and the courts.  His practice also includes reviewing advertising for legal acceptability on behalf of many advertising agencies and advertisers; obtaining network and other media clearance; handling matters before the Federal Trade Commission; representing clients in false advertising cases; advising clients on trademark, copyright, and other intellectual property matters; and negotiating and drafting advertising and entertainment contracts.  Prior to joining Manatt, Mr. Edelstein was a partner at the New York law firm Hall Dickler Kent Goldstein & Wood, LLP. 

Mr. Edelstein's accomplishments include:

• Representation of Schick in a challenge by Gillette to advertising for the Schick Intuition Plus razor, with the NAD.  The NAD found that Schick substantiated its claims that the Intuition Plus provides a moisturizing benefit during shaving and is "the only razor that lathers and moisturizes" during shaving.  The NAD also found that the claim that the razor "leaves skin noticeably softer" was supported by consumer use testing.
• On behalf of Energizer, successfully challenged advertising claims by Duracell that its Coppertop battery "lasts just as long in most common household devices" as the Energizer e² Lithium battery and that e² Lithium batteries "waste power."  The NAD found that the study relied upon by Duracell was insufficient to support these claims and recommended that they be discontinued.
• On behalf of General Mills, successfully challenged advertising claims by The Dannon Company for Light & Fit 0% Plus Yogurt.  The claims at issue were that the product has "50% more fruit" and contains 12% of the recommended daily value of protein and 10% of the recommended daily value of Vitamin A.  The NAD found the claims to be unsubstantiated and recommended that they be modified or discontinued. 

• Counsel to Lenovo, which acquired the IBM personal computer division in 2005, challenging advertising claims by Dell.  Dell stated that its personal computers are the "World's Most Secure Notebooks" in addition to other related claims.  The NAD evaluated the evidence submitted by both parties and determined, as Lenovo had argued, that Dell could not support its absolute superiority claims regarding security because it had not established that its competitors' products provided less security.

• On behalf of General Mills, successfully defended a NAD action brought by Kellogg regarding advertising claims for Pillsbury Toaster Strudel.  The claims at issue were "Pop-Tarts can't stand up to the delicious taste of Toaster Strudel" and "The one kids want to eat," both of which were used in the challenged commercial and on the Web site.  The NAD found that the taste superiority claims for Toaster Strudel compared to Kellogg's Pop-Tarts were substantiated by a national taste test.

• Counsel to Profile Products, a producer of erosion control products, challenging a large number of advertising claims made by North American Green for HyrdraCX2, a competing erosion control product.  The challenged claims included content, performance, and superiority claims.  The NAD recommended that NAG discontinue most of the challenged claims.

• Counsel to Dyson Technology Limited in Dyson Technology Limited v. Maytag Corp. (D. Del. 2007).  Maytag, the former owner of the Hoover Company, brought numerous false advertising counterclaims against our client, Dyson, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.  Maytag challenged virtually every advertising claim made by Dyson for its vacuum cleaners since it launched in the United States, including Dyson's well-known claim that Dyson vacuum cleaners do not lose suction.  A cross-office team of Manatt litigators defended Dyson in this matter.  The case settled on the eve of the trial. 

• Successfully defeated a motion for preliminary injunction sought against client Jack in the Box alleging that television commercials for Jack in the Box 100% sirloin hamburgers were false and misleading with respect to Carl’s Jr. and Hardees Angus hamburgers, in CKE Restaurants v. Jack in the Box (C.D. Cal. 2007).

• Counsel to Schick Manufacturing and Eveready Battery Company in Schick Manufacturing, et al. v. Gillette (D. Conn. 2005).  Preliminary injunction in favor of client regarding advertising claims.

• Counsel to Energizer Holdings in a challenge to advertising by Rayovac making the superiority claim “World’s best rechargeable system” for its 15-minute battery charger.  The NARB upheld the NAD decision finding that the claim was unsubstantiated because it held true for only 20% of the batteries on the market.  We also represented Energizer Holdings in the NAD proceeding.
• On behalf of Eveready Battery Company, we successfully challenged advertising by Kodak that its oxy-alkaline digital camera batteries allow consumers to take up to three times more pictures with a digital camera than with regular alkaline batteries.  The NAD required that the claim be discontinued.
• Counsel to SBC Communications in a challenge to advertising by AT&T for its CallVantage Internet telephone services.  The challenge was filed with NAD.  NAD upheld the challenge, requesting modifications to the challenged advertising.

• Counsel to Expedia and Hotels.com in a challenge to advertising by Priceline for its online hotel reservation service.  NAD upheld the challenge, requesting modifications to the challenged advertising.

• Winning an appeal before the NARB on behalf of Millenium Import Co., a leading luxury vodka importer, which had challenged advertising  for Grey Goose vodka.
• Winning an appeal before the NARB on behalf of the United States Postal Service regarding advertising for Priority Mail.

• Winning an appeal before the NARB on behalf of a leading household products manufacturer, Fort James Corporation (now Georgia-Pacific), defending a challenge by a competitor, Procter & Gamble.
• Achieving favorable rulings at the NAD and NARB on behalf of many other clients in diverse industries.  

• Successfully leading the American Association of Advertising Agencies and other advertising industry associations in their efforts to prevent proposed changes to the law regarding the use of express warranties and puffery in advertising.

Upon graduation from law school, Mr. Edelstein joined the Federal Trade Commission and served in the General Counsel's Office.  In 1976 he became Attorney-Advisor to then FTC Commissioner Elizabeth Dole.  He then became Director of Broadcast Standards and Practices of the American Broadcasting Company, where he supervised commercial clearance for television and radio broadcast.

Education

Harvard Law School, J.D., 1973.

University of California at Berkeley, A.B., 1970 (Phi Beta Kappa).

Memberships & Activities

Admitted to practice in New York and Washington, D.C.

Member, Legal Affairs Committee of the American Advertising Federation.

Member, Editorial Advisory Board, Advertising Compliance Service.

Chairman, Practising Law Institute's annual Program on Advertising Law, 1996-2000.

Past Chairman, Consumer Affairs Committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York.

Past Member, Trademarks and Unfair Competition Committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York.

Honors & Awards

Named as one of the Top-Ranked Attorneys, Chambers USA, 2008-2011.

The Best Lawyers in America, 2007-2012.

New York Super Lawyers, 2006-2009.

Named as a leading lawyer for Marketing and Advertising: Litigation and Transactions, The Legal 500, 2009.

Publications

“The Future of Self-Regulation of Behavioral Advertising,” Advertising Compliance Service, July 20 and August 3, 2009.

Co-Editor of AdvertisingLaw@manatt, the weekly newsletter of the Advertising, Marketing & Media Practice Group.

“Noteworthy Developments in NAD and CARU False Advertising Cases,” Advertising Compliance Service, July 21, 2008.

“Self-Regulation of Advertising: An Alternative to Litigation and Government Action,” IDEA: The Journal of Law and Technology, Vol. 43, No. 3, 2003.

“District Court Denies Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Product Demonstration Case,” Advertising Compliance Service, September 2, 2002.

“Dustin Hoffman Decision Reversed on Appeal,” Advertising Compliance Service, September 3, 2001.

Co-Author, “Recent Developments in Trade Dress Infringement Law,” IDEA: The Journal of Law and Technology, Vol. 40, No. 1, 2000.

“Advertising Law in the New Media Age,” Practising Law Institute Conferences, 1996-2000.

“Ban on Gambling Ads Could Spawn a Major Ruling on Commercial Speech,” New York Law Journal, December 21, 1998.

“Recent Developments in Advertising Law,” Practising Law Institute Conference, October 2, 1998.

“Private Labels Under New Pressure,” Brandweek, March 30, 1998.

“NARB Finds Advertising for Priority Mail Service Substantiated,” Advertising Compliance Service, April 7, 1997.

Co-Author, “Going for the Green: Activists Target Environmental Ad Claims,” Washington Legal Foundation, March 15, 1996.

“Combating False Advertising by a Competitor,” Advertising Compliance Service, February 5, 1996.

“New Limitations on Commercial Speech,” New York Law Journal, October 20, 1995.

“Analyzing the Legal and Trade Dress Issues of Premium Brands,” Conference on Profiting in the World of Premium Private Labels, International Business Communications, June 1995.

“Supporting and Challenging Advertising Claims with Consumer Perception Studies,” Food Technology, August 1994.

Co-Author, “Criteria for Taste Test Research: An Overview,” Proceedings of NAD Workshop III on Advances in Claim Substantiation, April 29-30, 1991.

“False Advertising Litigation under Revised Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act,” Advertising Compliance Service, January 21, 1991, January 7, 1991, and December 17, 1990.

“How the Federal Courts and the FTC Distinguish Between Puffery and Taste Claims that Require Substantiation,” Proceedings of the NAD Workshop I on Substantiating a Taste Claim, May 10-11, 1990.

“FTC Re-Regulation of Advertising,” Advertising Compliance Service, December 1988.

“Current Developments in Advertising Regulation,” Advertising Compliance Service, November 21, 1983.

“Challenging Network Commercials,” Advertising Compliance Service, December 20, 1982.

Foreward, “Openness in Government,” Federal Bar Journal Symposium Issues, Fall 1979 and Fall 1975.

Speaking Engagements

“Budget Busters: Bongs, Blogs and Brand Wars,” American Advertising Federation National  Webinar, October 24 and April 29, 2009."

“Can They Say That?  Testimonials and Endorsements,” National Advertising Division Annual Conference, October 5, 2009.

“Green Marketing: Understanding the Legal Risks,” Progressive Business Conferences Webinar, September 23, 2009.

“Recent Developments in Right of Publicity Law,” International Trademark Association Annual Meeting, May 19, 2009.

“Make It Personal: Behavioral Marketing and Privacy Issues,” American Advertising Federation National Conference, June 4, 2009.

“Recent Trends in NAD and Lanham Act False Advertising Cases,” American Advertising Federation National Conference, June 9, 2008.