Consolidated Mfg. Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 6428-6430.
| Decision Date | 11 October 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 6428-6430.,6428-6430. |
| Citation | 199 F.2d 417 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
| Parties | CONSOLIDATED MFG. CO. et al. v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. CONTAINER MFG. CO. et al. v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. SUPERIOR PRODUCTS et al. v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. |
Alexander Blumenthal, New York City (Glassgold & Blumenthal, New York City, on the brief), for petitioners.
Alan B. Hobbes, Sp. Atty., Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D. C. (W. T. Kelley, Gen. Counsel, Federal Trade Commission and Robert B. Dawkins, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for respondent.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
These are petitions to review and set aside orders of the Federal Trade Commission, which, on its part, asks that the orders be enforced. The orders complained of direct petitioners to cease and desist from selling or distributing in commerce as defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 41 et seq. "push cards, punchboards or other lottery devices which are to be used or may be used in the sale or distribution of merchandise to the public by means of a game of chance, gift enterprise or lottery scheme". Petitioners contend that the Commission is without jurisdiction over them because they merely sell in commerce the punchboards and not the merchandise which is sold or distributed as a result of the operation of the boards, their argument being that the sale of the boards does not involve any "unfair methods of competition" or any "unfair or deceptive acts or practices" when considered apart from the merchandise sold or distributed in connection with their operation. This position was adequately answered in the opinion of Mr. Justice Minton, then a Circuit Judge, speaking for the Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit in Modernistic Candies v. Federal Trade Commission, 7 Cir., 145 F.2d 454, 455, wherein he said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Broadcasting Co. v. United States
...upholding F. T. C. orders against the use of lottery devices, such as punch boards, in the distribution of candy. Consolidated Mfg. Co. v. F. T. C., 4 Cir., 199 F.2d 417, citing cases; Sweets Co. of America v. F. T. C., 2 Cir., 109 F.2d The reasoning and the cases cited seem to me rather co......
-
Marco Sales Company v. FTC
...354 (1953); Gay Games, Inc. v. FTC, 204 F.2d 197 (10th Cir. 1953); Zitserman v. FTC, 200 F.2d 519 (8th Cir. 1952); Consolidated Mfg. Co. v. FTC, 199 F.2d 417 (4th Cir. 1952); Lichtenstein v. FTC, 194 F.2d 607 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 344 U.S. 819, 73 S.Ct. 15, 97 L.Ed. 638 (1952); Hamilton......
-
Surf Sales Company v. Federal Trade Commission
...Cardboard Novelty Co. v. F.T.C., 3 Cir., 1951, 192 F.2d 444; Lichtenstein v. F.T.C., 9 Cir., 1952, 194 F.2d 607; Consolidated Mfg. Co. v. F.T.C., 4 Cir., 1952, 199 F.2d 417; Zitserman v. F.T.C., 8 Cir., 1952, 200 F. 2d 519; Gay Games, Inc., v. F.T.C., 10 Cir., 1953, 204 F.2d 197; James v. F......
-
Gay Games v. Federal Trade Commission
...A like contention with respect to similar orders has been considered by a number of the courts. See: Consolidated Mfg. Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 4 Cir., 199 F.2d 417, 418; Globe Cardboard Novelty Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 3 Cir., 192 F.2d 444, 447, and cases there We construe ......
-
Deceptive and Unfair Practices
...v. FTC, 194 F.2d 607 (9th Cir. 1952) (same); Bork Mfg. Co. v. FTC, 194 F.2d 611 (9th Cir. 1952) (same); Consolidated Mfg. Co. v. FTC, 199 F.2d 417 (4th Cir. 1952) (merchandising by gambling and aiding it unfair); Globe Cardboard Novelty Co. v. FTC, 192 F.2d 444 (3d Cir. 1951) (facilitation ......
-
Table of Cases
...1990), 778 Conopco, Inc. v. Campbell Soup Co., 95 F.3d 187 (2d Ch. 1996), 1285, 1286, 1288, 1289, 1290, 1317 Consolidated Mfg. Co. v. FTC, 199 F.2d 417 (4th Cir. 1952), 105 Consumer Direct, Inc., 113 F.T.C. 923 (1990), 117, 459 Consumer Fed’n. of Am. v. FTC, 515 F.2d 367 (D.C. Cir. 1975), 4......