{"id":215023,"date":"2024-11-21T14:00:00","date_gmt":"2024-11-21T14:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/icrowdnewswire.com\/?p=3083211"},"modified":"2024-11-21T14:00:00","modified_gmt":"2024-11-21T14:00:00","slug":"nad-finds-patented-and-safety-claims-for-poophs-pet-odor-stain-eliminator-supported-recommends-other-claims-be-modified-or-discontinued","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/ipsnews.net\/business\/2024\/11\/21\/nad-finds-patented-and-safety-claims-for-poophs-pet-odor-stain-eliminator-supported-recommends-other-claims-be-modified-or-discontinued\/","title":{"rendered":"NAD Finds Patented and Safety Claims for POOPH\u2019s Pet Odor & Stain Eliminator Supported; Recommends Other Claims Be Modified or Discontinued"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

New York, NY \u2013 November 21, 2024<\/strong> \u2013<\/em> In a challenge brought by Reckitt Benckiser LLC, BBB National Programs\u2019 National Advertising Division determined that Ikigai Marketing Works, LLC and POOPH, Inc. (together, Ikigai) supported patented and safety claims for their POOPH Pet Odor & Stain Eliminator, but recommended that other claims, including claims that POOPH eliminates odors and strains, be discontinued.<\/p>\n

The National Advertising Division (NAD) also recommended that the challenged superiority comparative claims, including \u201c[o]ther sprays just cover up odor,\u201d be modified or discontinued.<\/p>\n

Patented Claim<\/strong><\/p>\n

The POOPH product packaging states that it \u201cCONTAINS: Water, Surfactants, and Patented Odor Eliminator Blend.\u201d Based on the evidence in the record, NAD concluded that the claim \u201cPatented Odor Eliminator Blend\u201d is substantiated.<\/p>\n

Odor and Stain Elimination Claims<\/strong><\/p>\n

Reckitt challenged Ikigai\u2019s claims that its POOPH Pet Odor & Stain Eliminator eliminates odors, including at a molecular level, and eliminates stains. These claims appear in multiple locations including in its product name, on product packaging, on its website, and in commercials.<\/p>\n

NAD found that odor \u201celimination\u201d is a powerful claim that may convey to reasonable consumers that POOPH eliminates odor at both a molecular and perceptual level. Ikigai submitted studies that demonstrated the chemistry of the product and that the product reduced some odors, but NAD found that the studies did not support challenged claims that POOPH eliminates malodor. Therefore, NAD recommended that the odor elimination claims be discontinued.<\/p>\n

The stain elimination claims also appear in multiple locations including in POOPH\u2019s product name, the product packaging, and on its website. Posts on Ikigai\u2019s Instagram account also claim that \u201c[w]e\u2019re here to keep your pup\u2019s throne (aka the couch) stain free\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n

NAD found Ikigai\u2019s evidence did not support a stain elimination claim so NAD recommended that it discontinue the challenged stain elimination claims.<\/p>\n

Comparative Claims<\/strong><\/p>\n

Reckitt also challenged several comparative claims found on Ikigai\u2019s website and in variations in other videos. Specifically, on the \u201cPooph Science\u201d section on the Ikigai\u2019s website, the claim \u201cslow-acting sprays cover-up odors\u201d is heard while a bottle labeled Nature\u2019s Breeze appears. Later the narrator asks, \u201cWhy waste money on any product that doesn\u2019t totally eliminate the stink?\u201d and closes with \u201cIF IT\u2019S NOT [POOPH] IT STINKS!\u201d<\/p>\n

NAD determined that reasonable consumers would understand the \u201cit stinks\u201d claim as a play on the language of foul odors and not a claim based on evidence that compares the efficacy of its product to another and concluded that the claim was puffery.<\/p>\n

NAD found, however, that other claims such as \u201cWhy waste money on any product that doesn\u2019t totally eliminate the stink?\u201d and \u201cOther sprays just cover up odor,\u201d conveyed the message that POOPH is superior to all competing products because they are ineffective and merely mask malodor instead of eliminating them.<\/p>\n

Because Ikigai\u2019s evidence did not support the superiority comparative claims, NAD recommended that the challenged express comparative claims be discontinued, and the advertising be modified to avoid conveying the following implied claims:<\/p>\n