Question: Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp. brought suit, alleging that representations by Richardson-Vicks, Inc. ("Vicks") regarding its product, Vicks Pediatric Formula 44, constituted false and deceptive advertising under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. Specifically, Sandoz challenged:
(1) Vicks' assertion that Pediatric 44 starts to work the instant it is swallowed, and
(2) Vicks' advertising claims that Pediatric 44 is superior to its competitors.
Sandoz requested that the court issue a preliminary injunction against Vicks' advertising claims. What legal rules should the court consider in evaluating this request?