USA TODAY 03/19/2001 PAPA JOHN'S WINS A ROUND OVER PIZZA HUT
WASHINGTON (AP) — Papa John's says its pizza is better than Pizza Hut's because it uses superior ingredients. On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to hear Pizza Hut's argument that the claim should be considered false advertising.
The court, without comment, turned down an appeal by Pizza Hut, which won — and then lost — a false-advertising lawsuit against Papa John's.
Pizza Hut said it should not have to prove that its rival's ads actually affected people's choices on what pizza to buy.
Papa John's officials expressed relief that the case had concluded. "We obviously feel vindicated in this," said Karen Sherman, spokeswoman for the Louisville-based Papa John's. "This battle is over now."
Pizza Hut president Mike Rawlings said, "No advertiser has ever been able to defend a campaign that is deceptive on the basis that the public doesn't care. We are disappointed the court did not seize this opportunity to clarify this matter for the benefit of consumers and responsible advertisers alike."
Pizza Hut is the nation's largest pizza chain, and Papa John's is the third-largest. In 1995, Papa John's adopted a new slogan: "Better ingredients. Better pizza," and later it started a major national advertising campaign using the slogan.
One of the ads boasted that Papa John's "won big time" in taste tests against Pizza Hut. Other ads said its sauce and dough were better than Pizza Hut's because they were made with fresh tomatoes and filtered water.
Pizza Hut filed a federal false-advertising lawsuit against Papa John's in Dallas in 1998, saying scientific evidence showed that Papa John's methods and ingredients made no difference in the pizza's taste.
A jury ruled that Papa John's claims of better sauce and dough were false or misleading. The judge barred the pizza chain from using the "Better ingredients. Better pizza" slogan and awarded Pizza Hut $467,619 in damages.
But a federal appeals court threw out the verdict last September and ruled for Papa John's. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the jurors were asked whether the ads were likely to deceive consumers, but they were never asked whether consumers actually relied on the claims in deciding what pizza to buy.
In the appeal acted on Monday, Pizza Hut's lawyers said ads like Papa John's violate federal law even without proof that customers relied on them in deciding what product to buy.
Papa John's lawyers said the ads did not make false statements but instead were statements of personal taste — "what pizza tastes like, which kinds of tastes are better."
YOUR NAME HERE CRN: 20100 Pizza Hut v. Papa John’s
Pizza Hut filed suit against Papa John's claiming that their slogan of "Better Ingredients. Better Pizza." is false advertising and misleads consumers into thinking that they are purchasing better quality pizza at Papa John's. While I believe that Pizza Hut was correct in pursuing a case of false advertising as far as Papa John's claims concerning supposed taste tests that had been done where their pizza "won big time" against Pizza Hut, I feel like it was childish to even mention their slogan. In the world we live in we are surrounded by puffery—i.e., exaggerated commendation especially for promotional purposes : a hype. Just like Coca-Cola's slogan of “Open Happiness” doesn't mean that one will literally be opening a bottle of happiness. You can't go suing someone for campaigning their product in a way that is both legal and efficient.
The case of Pizza Hut, Inc. v. Papa John's Intern., Inc., 227 F. 3d 489 actually started in 1998, but was thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004, turning down Pizza Hut's appeal. In the court hearing of 1998 the judge banned the use of the slogan "Better ingredients. Better pizza." and awarded Pizza Hut $467,619 in damages. In my opinion the judge didn't make the right decision, but when the case was bumped up to The Supreme Court the judge there said "You say 'canned tomatoes,' I say 'tomato paste,' let's call the whole thing 'sauce.'" and with that she dismissed the case. The childish banter between the two corporations had gone on long enough and I'm glad this judge stepped up and ended it the way she did.
People look to ads for guidance in regards as to where to spend their money. That does not mean that they rely solely on ads to make their decisions though. People are intuitive and through experience are able to decide for themselves which brand of pizza they like better. When it comes to food, it's all opinion-based. We all like different things and just because the general public has differing tastes doesn't mean that a company's slogan is stealing your business.
