Harvard Law School, J.D.

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

Jeff’s accomplishments include:

• On behalf of a multinational consumer goods company, successfully resolved advertising disputes with a competitor and potential consumer class actions.
• Counsel to Guthy-Renker in a NARB appeal regarding advertising claims made for the Crepe Erase Anti-Aging Body Care Treatment System. The NAD challenged 13 claims that Guthy-Renker was making in its advertising for Crepe Erase. After more than a year of submissions, the NAD found that some of the claims were supported but that others were not supported. Guthy-Renker appealed the decision regarding seven of the claims to the NARB, and Jeff argued the appeal in front of a panel of five NARB members, which held that Guthy-Renker had adequate substantiation for each of the seven claims.
• On behalf of Multiple Energy Technologies LLC (MET), the maker of Redwave-brand bioceramic material for use in sportswear, sleepwear, bedding and other textiles, secured a preliminary injunction in the Lanham Act false advertising case Multiple Energy Technologies LLC v. Hologenix LLC (C.D. Cal. 2019). The court ruled in MET’s favor after finding that Hologenix made literally false statements on its website and in social media and press releases indicating that the Food and Drug Administration had approved its competing product, Celliant.
• Counsel to Energizer Holdings in a challenge with the NAD to Procter & Gamble’s claim that Duracell Rechargeable Batteries are “50% longer lasting” on product packaging. Procter & Gamble agreed to modify or discontinue the claim.
• Counsel to Profile Products, a leading producer of soil erosion products, in a challenge with the NAD to a large number of advertising claims made by Terra Novo for EarthGuard, a competing erosion control product. Profile asserted that Terra Novo had made a variety of false and misleading claims that EarthGuard outperforms or is as effective as Profile’s Flexterra. The NAD found that most of the claims were unsubstantiated.
• 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 on 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 website. 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 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 Manatt’s client, Dyson, in the U.S. 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 favorably on the eve of 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 in Schick Manufacturing, et al. v. Gillette (D. Conn. 2005). Garnered a preliminary injunction in favor of Schick regarding advertising claims that the Gillette M3Power razor raised hair up and away from the skin for a closer shave. The preliminary injunction required that Gillette cease from making these claims and sticker over the claims on all product packages throughout the United States.
• 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.
• 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.