Comparative advertising is the use of another company's trademark in order to compare that company's products with its own. Whether or not comparative advertising qualifies as trademark infringement or dilution is governed by those bodies of law. If, for instance, an ad does not carefully delineate the competitor's mark from its own, and thereby creates a likelihood of consumer confusion, then the use of the mark is infringing. But, where there is no consumer confusion, or dilution, direct claims about another company's product are allowed (if the claims are true, of course). For example, Hudson Pharmaceutical Co. was allowed to copy certain elements from the package and label of METAMUCIL, and to state that its own product, REGACILIUM, was equivalent to METAMUCIL. However, Hudson was required to print the word "equivalent" in at least as large of letters as the mark METAMUCIL, to place a ® next to the term METAMUCIL, and to state that METAMUCIL was made by G.D. Searle and that Searle did not make or license REGACILIUM. G.D. Searle & Co. v. Hudson Pharm. Corp., 715 F.2d 837, 839 (3rd Cir. 1983). Similarly, SECOND CHANCE perfume was allowed to state in its materials that it was equivalent to CHANEL No. 5 perfume.Smith v. Chanel, Inc., 402 F.2d 562, 563 (9th Cir. 1968).
