Search

The article presents information on legal developments in marketing relative to the regulation of unfair competition. Regarding advertising, the article discusses a U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Rule regarding Advertising of Opthalmic Goods and Services. In it's first trade regulation rule issued after being granted expanded authority in the Magnuson-Moss Act of 1975, the FTC preempts state laws regarding the advertising of eyeglasses and eye examinations. Other provisions of the rule are presented and the larger issue of FTC authority superceding state laws is discussed. In action against Cooga Mooga, Inc., the FTC will hold entertainer Pat Boone liable for representations made in the advertising of Acne-Statin.

The article presents U.S. legal developments in marketing relative to the regulation of channels of distribution. In reference to the operating features of marketing institutions and the relations between buyers and sellers the Freed Oil Co., Inc., et al. v. Quaker State Oil Refining Corp. and the American Oil Co., the Universal Brands Inc., et al. v. Phillip Morris Inc., et al., the Kentucky Fried Chicken Corp. v. Diversified Packaging Corp., et al., and the Arlie Mack Moore, et al. v. Jas. H. Matthews & Co., Rest Haven Memorial Association, et al. cases are cited among others.

The article presents U.S. legal developments in marketing from the period of 1975-1977. The United States v. American Building Maintenance case is cited. In this case the U.S. Supreme Court limited the extent to which Section 7 of the Clayton Act could impinge on the consolidation and mergers of corporations. The United States v. Citizens and Southern National Bank, et al. case is cited in reference to the legal issues pertaining to holding companies. The Continental T.V. Inc., et al. v. GTE-Sylvania, Inc. case is cited in reference to antitrust legislation as it pertains to franchise agreements.

The article presents U.S. legal developments in marketing relative to the regulation of unfair competition. In 1977 the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a request by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to review a case pertaining to the protection of advertising language under the free speech consideration of the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. The FTC rejected a guide which would prohibit all television advertising directed at or viewed by children which involved promotional offers. In reference to trademarks and trade names the Church & Dwight Co., Inc. v. Helene Curtis Industries, Inc., Achter's Key Drug, Inc., and N.W. Ayer & Son, Inc., d.b.a. N.W. International case is cited.

The article presents U.S. legal developments in marketing relative to the regulation of monopolistic methods. In 1977 the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) challenged the proposed acquisition by Tenneco of Monroe Auto Equipment Co. The FTC alleged that Tenneco controlled approximately 36% of the domestic market for exhaust system parts. In reference to collusive practices the California Computer Products v. International Business Machines, the David M. Barry, M.D., v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Co., and the Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois cases are cited. In reference to market exclusion the United States v. Professional Society of Engineers, the Surety Title Insurance v. Virginia State Bar, and the Central Bank of Clayton v. Clayton Bank cases are cited among others.

The article presents U.S. legal cases and developments in marketing relative to the regulation of monopolistic methods. In reference to market control the Brunswick Corporation v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., et al., the United States v. Foremost-McKesson, Inc., DeLuca Importing Co., Inc., et al., and the Kennecott Copper Corporation v. Federal Trade Commission cases are cited. In reference to collusive practices the Weight Watchers of Rocky Mountain v. Weight Watchers International and the Manasen v. California Dental Services cases are cited. In reference to market exclusion the United States Steel Corp. v. Fortner Enterprises, the United States v. American Telephone and Telegraph Co., and the Smith Kline Corp. v. Eli Lilly and Co. cases are cited.

The article presents U.S. legal developments in marketing relative to the regulation of unfair competition. In reference to advertising the Ve-Ri-Tas, Inc. and Pat Walker's of Colorado, Inc. v. Advertising Review Council of Metropolitan Denver, Inc., Rocky Mountain Better Business Bureau, Inc., Advertising Club of Denver, et al. case is cited. Several references to charges of unfair or deceptive corporate advertising practices issued by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) are presented. In reference to trademarks and trade names the Williams & Co., Inc. v. Williams & Co.-East case is cited.

The article presents U.S. legal cases and developments in marketing relative to the regulation of monopolistic methods. In reference to market control the Purex Corp., Ltd. v. Procter & Gamble Co., and the Clorox Co., the United States v. International Harvester Co., and Steiger Tractor Inc., and the Beatrice Foods Co. v. Federal Trade Commission cases are cited. In reference to collusive practices the Feminist Women's Health Center, Inc. v. Mahmood Mohammad, M.D., et al. and the United States v. Dan B. Buzzard cases are cited among others. In reference to market exclusion tactics the Harris v. Bolin and the Dunn v. Frank Miller cases are cited among others.

The article presents a number of court cases and legal developments pertaining to the regulation of unfair competition. The author notes the case of Robert J. Milavetz and Lawrence M. Baill v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. and American Telephone and Telegraph Co. in which the issue of advertising professional services is discussed.

The article reports on legal developments relating to the regulation of channels of distribution in the field of marketing in the U.S. The author relates the court case of W. L. Gore and Associates, Incorporated v. Carlisle Group Corporation to regulations associated with operating features of marketing institutions. The court case Bent E. Mortensen et al v. First Federal Savings and Loan Association is discussed in relation to exclusive dealing arrangement between buyers and sellers. Fair trade legislation associatied with price control is also mentioned.

The article discusses a number of United States Supreme Court decisions that had an effect on the field of marketing from 1968-1974. According to the author, the court made decisions regarding legal issues including copyright law, prohibition on price discrimination outlined in the Robinson-Patman Act and legitimate defenses of franchisors to attacks by franchises. Also discussed is the Supreme Court's treatment of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, the pricing of professional services and tying contracts.

The article reports on legal developments relating to the regulation unfair competition in the field of marketing in the U.S. The author includes information about a legal proceeding involving Warner-Lambert Company, during which the U.S. Federal Trade Commission announced that it had the power to issue and enforce corrective advertising orders. The American Pharmaceutical Association is discussed in relation to an antitrust lawsuit. Busch Jewelry Company, Incorporated is mentioned in regards questionable nonadvertising promotional methods. The company is accused of refusing to cater to the needs of Spanish speaking clientele.

The article reports on legal developments relating to the regulation of monopolistic methods in the field of marketing in the U.S. The author discusses the court case of Anaconda Company v. Crane Company in relation to market control. The court case the United States v. Amax Incorporated and Copper Range Company is mentioned in relation to a prospective merger of the two corporations. The author also includes information about the court case the United States v. United States Gypsum Company. The court cases the United States v. Bechtel and CASS Student Advertising v. National Education Advertising Service are discussed in relation to market exclusion tactics.

The article presents U.S. legal developments in marketing relative to the regulation of unfair competition. In 1974 the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued several complaints against U.S. companies for bait-and-switch advertising practices. Companies found guilty of such practices may be required to place "consumer warning notices" in future advertisements. A U.S. District Court ruled that automobile manufacturers may not claim superiority in their product's handling to other automobiles without a reasonable basis to support those claims. In 1974 the FTC ruled that it is unfair for a company to advertise for a weight loss treatment or drug that hasn't been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The article presents U.S. legal developments in marketing relative to the regulation of channels of distribution. In reference to the operating features of marketing institutions the La Maur, Inc. v. Alberto-Culver Co. and Leonard H. Lavin and Co. and the Fairfield County Beverage Distributors, Inc. v. Narragansett Brewing Co. cases are cited. In reference to the relations between buyers and sellers the Clairol Inc. v. Cosmetics Plus, the Richard E. Driskill v. Dallas Cowboys Football Club, Inc., et al., and the James M. Bacon et al. v. Texaco, Inc. cases are cited among others.

The article presents U.S. legal developments in marketing relative to the regulation of monopolistic methods. In reference to market control the United States v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., et al. and the Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, et al. cases are cited. In the former case a U.S. District Court ruled that Falstaff's acquisition of the Narragansett Brewing Co. did not constitute restraint of trade per section 7 of the Clayton Act. In reference to market exclusion tactics the Burton Supply Co. v. Wheel Horse Products, Inc., the Fuchs Sugar & Syrups, Inc. v. Amstar Corp. and the United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph cases are cited.

The article presents legal developments in marketing with particular focus on the regulation of unfair competition. One of the developments describes the case of Credit Card Service Corp. and John P. Perry v. Federal Trade Commission. In this case the court confirmed an order by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that Credit Card Service must cease any advertising which states that customers are liable for any goods purchased on a stolen or lost credit card until the card is reported. Another development discusses the case of Spiegel Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, in which the court found that the FTC has the right to issue an order to cease and desist an improper practice even if no harm has fallen on the firm's customers or competitors.

The article presents legal developments in marketing with particular focus on the regulation of monopolistic methods. One of the developments describes the case of the United States v. General Dynamics Corp., which suggests a major shift in the way that the U.S. Supreme Court defines Section 7 of the Clayton Act. Another development discusses the case of Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar. In this case, the court found that a price schedule issued by a private legal bar association does not constitute illegal price fixing because the lawyers do not practice a trade. A third development focuses on the case of Treasure Valley Potato Bargaining Association v. Ore-Ida Foods. This case is described in the text.

The article presents information on legal developments in marketing relative to the regulation of monopolistic methods. The article begins by discusses the revision of the National Association of Attorneys General Merger Guidelines as they pertain to the alignment of state and federal practices on horizontal mergers. Among other actions, the article discusses the case of United States v. Brown University and the participation of many top U.S. universities and colleges in the Ivy Overlap Group, which was found guilty of participating in price fixing agreements and eliminating financial competition for minority applicants. The article suggests that educational marketers examine their own institutional behavior. Several other cases are noted and their marketing implications discussed.

The article presents legal developments in marketing with particular focus on the regulation of monopolistic methods. One of the developments describes the case of Levi Case v. ATS Products Inc., which clarified that an antitrust conspiracy exists only if the alleged conspirators have independent economic interests. A second development discusses the Supreme court case of Eastman Kodak v. Image Technical Services, which involves the use of theoretical economic analyses to avoid trial of antitrust controversies. A third development focuses on the case of United States v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp., in which Louisiana-Pacific was fined for its failure to divest a subsidiary company.

The article presents information on legal developments in marketing relative to the regulation of monopolistic methods. In regard to market control, the article discusses the details and implications of Judith Nelson, et al. v. Monroe Regional Medical Center, where it was ruled that individuals who were denied treatment by a clinic suffered an antitrust injury. Regarding collusive practices, the article discusses City of Columbia and Columbia Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Omni Outdoor Advertising, Inc. where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that under the Parker v. Brown doctrine, billboard construction regulations within zoning ordinances are immune from antitrust liability. Several other cases are cited and discussed in terms of their implications in marketing.

The article presents information on legal developments in marketing relative to the regulation of monopolistic methods. In regard to market control, the article discusses the implications of U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., et al., where Du Pont agreed to divest its ownership of General Motors stock and avoid having common directors with General Motors. In regard to collusive practices, the article discusses another Supreme Court case, Palmer v. BRG of Georgia where the Court overruled earlier federal district court and Court of Appeals decisions regarding horizontal price increases. Medical CME Associates v. Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education is discussed in terms of its implications to market exclusion tactics.

The article presents information on U.S. legal cases and developments in marketing relative to the regulation of product characteristics. In reference to product quality and safety standards the Dean O. Webb Regency Consultants, Inc. and Primo's Partners, Ltd., v. Primo's, Inc., Ferris Anthony and Carmelo Trangali case is cited. This case focused on the legal relationship between franchise and franchiser. In reference to credit terms and conditions of sale the Regency Oldsmobile Inc., v. General Motors Corp. case is cited. This case dealt with conspiracy in restraint of trade. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) stance on automobile manufacturer warranties is also discussed.

The article presents information on U.S. legal cases and developments in marketing relative to the regulation of monopolistic methods. In regards to collusive behavior the cases Miller v. Commissioners of the Oregon Liquor Control Commission and Powell v. National Football League are presented. The cases were evaluated on the basis of U.S. antitrust legislation including interpretations of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. In reference to market exclusion tactics the United States Football League v. National Football League, Dick Geothermal v. Thermogenics, and Malden v. Union Electric cases are cited. These cases focused on the notion of fair competition in business.

The article presents U.S. legal cases and developments in marketing relative to the regulation of monopolistic methods. In reference to market control the Federal Trade Commission v. Elders Grain, Inc., et al., the United States v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. and Nabisco Brands, Inc., and the Caremark Homecare, Inc. v. New England Critical Care, Inc., et al. cases are cited. In reference to market exclusion tactics the Arnold Pontiac v. General Motors, Main Street Publishers v. Landmark Communications, the Bellsouth Advertising & Publishing Corp. v. Donnelley Information Publishing, and the Redmond v. Missouri Western State College cases are presented.

The article presents U.S. legal cases and developments in marketing relative to the regulation of marketing methods. In reference to market control the R. C. Bigelow, Inc. v. Unilever N. V., Thomas J. Lipton, Inc., Celestial Seasonings, Inc. and Kraft, Inc. and the Michigan Citizens for an Independent Press, et al. v. United States Attorney General Richard Thornburgh, et al. cases are cited. In reference to collusive behavior the Anti-Monopoly Group, Inc. v. General Mills Fun Group, Inc. case is cited. In regard to market exclusion the Clamp-All Corp. v. Cast Iron Soil Pipe Institute case is cited.

The topical outline of the developments in the legal environment in which marketing functions is presented below. Since only the most important cases as evaluated by the editorial staff are presented, the lack of important cases may lead to the absence of entries under one or more subtopics. For individual items covered, more detailed information may be obtained by reference to the source cited. Reference to CCH is to the Commerce Clearing House's Trade Regulation Reporter; reference to BNA is to the Bureau of National Affairs' Antitrust & Trade Regulation Report. Contributions by members of the editorial staff are identified by the contributor's surname appearing in the headnote of each specific entry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents U.S. legal cases and developments in marketing relative to the regulation of channels of distribution. In reference to the operating features of marketing institutions the Woodbury Daily Times Co., Inc., et al. v. Los Angeles Times-Washington Post News Service, et al., the Argus Inc. and Interphoto Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., et al., and the California Furniture Co., Inc. v. Rhodes, Inc. and Kincaid Furniture Co., Inc. cases are cited. In reference to the relations between buyers and sellers the Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp. v. Esprit De Corp. and Federated Department Stores, Inc., the Robert R. Koefoot, M.D., et al. v. American College of Surgeons, et al., The Victoria House, Inc. v. Fisher Camuto Corp., and the Nordic Bank, et al. v. The Trend Group, et al. cases are cited.

The article presents legal developments in marketing with particular focus given to the regulation of monopolistic practices. One of the developments describes the case of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission v. Coca-Cola Co., which focuses on the abandoned acquisition of the Dr. Pepper Co. by the Coca-Cola Co. Another development describes the U.S. Supreme Court case of the Federal Trade Commission v. Indiana Federation of Dentists, which focuses on the Indiana Federation of Dentists promoting unfair competition by requiring its members to withhold dental X-rays when submitting insurance claims.

The article presents U.S. legal cases and developments in marketing relative to the regulation of monopolistic methods. In reference to market control the White Consolidated Industries v. Whirlpool Corp. and the John K. Van de Kamp as Attorney General, State of California, et al. v. Texaco Inc., et al. cases are cited. In reference to collusive practices the Fisher v. City of Berkeley, California, the American Airlines v. United States, the Kalmanovitz v. G. Heilman Brewing Co., Inc., and the Bhan v. NME Hospitals, Inc. cases are cited. In reference to market exclusion the Simplot v. Strobl and the St. Jude Medical v. Intermedics cases are cited.

The article presents U.S. legal cases and developments in marketing relative to the regulation of price competition. In reference to price discrimination the Mario De Modena dba Sixth Avenue Pharmacy, et al. v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., et al. Portland Druggists Association, Inc. v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. et al., the Indian Coffee Corp. and Penn-Western Food Corp. v. Procter & Gamble Co. and Folger Coffee Co., and the Computronics, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc., and the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System cases are cited. In reference to price control the Pink Supply Corp. v. Hiebert Inc., et al. and the Francis D. K. S. Tom, D.M.D., dba Diversified Dental Services, and Dentaguard Inc. v. Hawaii Dental Services cases are cited.

The article presents U.S. legal cases and developments in marketing relative to the regulation of channels of distribution. In reference to the relations between buyers and sellers the Gillette Tire Jobbers of Louisiana, Inc. v. Appliance Industries, Inc. et al., the Metrix Warehouse, Inc. v. Daimler-Benz A.G. and Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., the Mozart Co. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., the Computer Place, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. and Computerland, Inc., the Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp. v. Esprit De Corp. and Federated Department Stores, Inc., and the Paul Bender et al. v. Southland Corp. cases are cited.

The article presents U.S. legal developments and cases in marketing relative to the regulation of monopolistic method. In reference to market control the Federal Trade Commission v. Warner Communications and the United States v. Waste Management, Inc. & EMW Ventures, Inc. cases are cited. The United States v. Missouri Valley Construction Co. case is cited in reference to collusive practices. In reference to market exclusion tactics the Weiss v. York Hospital, the Pennsylvania Dental Assn. v. Medical Service Assn. of Pennsylvania, and the Sanitation Equipment v. Thetford Corp. cases are cited. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) view on predatory pricing as it pertains to the Robinson-Patman Act is also discussed.

The article presents U.S. legal cases and developments pertaining to commercial legislation. The John F. "Jack" Walsh et al. v. Ford Motor Co., the Trinity Ambulance Service, Inc. and Aetna Ambulance Service, Inc. v. G.&L. Ambulance Services, Inc., The City of Hartford, L.&M. Ambulance Corp., and Professional Ambulance Service, Inc., the Richard Hoffman Corp. v. Integrated Building Systems, Inc. and Village of Glendale Heights, the Thillens, Inc. v. The Community Currency Exchange Assn. of Ill., Inc., et al. Appeal of John F. Wall and Walter McAvoy, and the David Greenhaw on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Lubbock County Beverage Assn. et al. cases are cited.

The article presents legal developments in marketing relating to the regulation of unfair competition. Regarding advertising, a case involving Bristol-Myers Company, Ted Bates & Co., Inc. and Young & Rubicam, Inc. is discussed, in which the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) charged that the companies used deceptive and false advertising in their marketing of analgesics, and presented the FTC's substantiation requirements. A case involving Thompson Medical Co. Inc. is also discussed, in which the FTC charged that a company whose trade name deceives the public may be required to place disclaimer notices in its advertising.

This article presents legal developments in marketing regarding the regulation of monopolistic methods, specifically market control, collusive practices, and market exclusion tactics. The case of Joseph Ciccone & Sons, Inc. v. Eastern Industries, Inc., et. al. discusses predatory pricing behavior and price cutting. The case of Montana v. Super America involves parallel pricing behavior. The United States Supreme Court case of Maryland v. United States involves the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act of 1973.

The article presents the legal developments in marketing regarding the regulation of monopolistic methods. In relation to market control, the case of United States v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp. is discussed, involving corporate acquisitions in the depressed timber industry. Relating to collusive practices, the case of United States v. First National Supermarkets is discussed, focusing on the managers of three supermarkets that met weekly in parking lots late at night to jointly determine what "specials" would be offered by each of them and at what prices. regarding market exclusion tactics, the case MCI Communications Corp. v. AT&T Co. is discussed, involving regulated monopolies and predatory tariffs. In the United States Supreme Court case Blue Shield of Virginia v. McCready, the reimbursement of insured claims is discussed.

The article presents legal developments in marketing relating to the regulation of channels of distribution. Regarding exclusive dealing arrangements and relations between buyer and sellers, the case The Sports Center, Inc. v. Riddell, Inc., Judge Little Company and Hale & Jones, Inc. is discussed, involving issues of illegal horizontal combinations of distributors. The case of Medical Arts Pharmacy of Stamford, Inc. et al. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Connecticut, Inc. is discussed, involving issues of illegal price fixing. The case Family Boating Center, Inc. v. Washington Area Marine Dealers Association, Inc. et al. is discussed, involving the question of whether group boycotts constitute violations of antitrust laws.

The article presents legal developments in marketing with particular focus on the regulation of monopolistic methods. One of the developments discusses the testimony of William F. Baxter, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the U.S. Antitrust Division. This testimony is expected to result in changes to the merger enforcement policies of the U.S. Justice Department. Another development describes the case of U.S. Brewers Association v. Healy. In this case the court found that a requirement by the state of Connecticut which makes distributors selling to wholesalers and retailers within the state post future prices with the Connecticut Department of Liquor Control does not constitute illegal price fixing.