ARTICLE
21 March 2025

NAD Considers Whether ​"Number 1" Claims Can Be Qualified

KD
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

Contributor

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP is an AmLaw 200, Chambers ranked, full-service law firm of more than 350 attorneys and other professionals. For more than 180 years, Kelley Drye has provided legal counsel carefully connected to our client’s business strategies and has measured success by the real value we create.
DREO advertises that it is the ​"No. 1 Fan and Heater Brand" in the United States. Lasko, a competitor, thinks that it is, in fact, the ​"number 1" brand in both of those categories.
United States Media, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment

DREO advertises that it is the "No. 1 Fan and Heater Brand" in the United States. Lasko, a competitor, thinks that it is, in fact, the "number 1" brand in both of those categories. Because there can't be two "number 1" brands, Lasko filed a challenge before the NAD to dispute its competitor's claims.

In support of its position, Lasko submitted three years of unit sales data from a market research company, which included both major online retailers and brick-and-mortar stores, to demonstrate that Lasko had a significantly higher market share than DREO.

Although DREO apparently didn't dispute that data, it argued that its claims are more narrow because a disclosure explains that the claims are based on third-party data for Amazon US Retail Sales, covering specific periods of time. Lasko didn't seem to dispute that data, either.

If neither party disputed the other party's data, who wins?

NAD determined that "each of the challenged claims reasonably conveys a broad message that DREO fans and heaters are the #1 brand in total sales volume, regardless of the channel in which the products are sold." In that case, the analysis turns on the disclosure.

Although the parties disputed whether DREO's disclosures were sufficiently clear, NAD noted that "a disclosure cannot be used to contradict the main message communicated. In this instance, because the main message as communicated in the challenged advertising is that DREO is the overall sales leader is unsupported, it cannot be qualified by a disclosure."

It's possible that this case would have turned out differently if the qualifying language were incorporated into the claim itself, rather than just appearing in the footnote. In any event, this decision is another reminder that there is a limit to what companies can do in the fine print.

Click here for our post earlier this week that discusses a different aspect of #1 claims.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More