TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Bear Sales Company, a Corporation and E. Robert Baer, Individually and as as an Officer of Said Corporation v. Federal Trade Commission

BEAR SALES COMPANY, a Corporation and E. Robert Baer, Individually and as as an Officer of Said Corporation, Petitioners, v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Respondent

Bear Sales Co., a Corp. & E. Robert Baer v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 362 F.2d 96 (7th Cir. 1966)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
June 30, 1966
Docket
No. 15350
Judges
Hastings, Castle, Kiley
Citations
362 F.2d 96

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

This matter is before the Court upon the petition of Bear Sales Company, a corporation, and E. Robert Baer, individually, to review an order issued by the Federal Trade Commission. The order requires the petitioners to cease and desist from selling or disposing of merchandise by means of a game of chance, gift enterprise, lottery scheme, chance, or gaming device, and from supplying to others devices designed to be so used.

The record establishes that petitioners are engaged in a typical “push card” merchandising operation such as that recently considered by this Court in Dandy Products, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 7 Cir., 332 F.2d 985 , and found to constitute an unfair method of competition which violated the Federal Trade Commission Act. In Dandy Products we rejected as unpersuasive the contention that Federal Trade Commission v. R. F. Keppel & Bro., Inc., 291 U.S. 304 , 54 S.Ct. 423 , 78 L.Ed. 814 , should no longer be considered an authoritative precedent because of what was represented to be “a change in the ‘moral’ climate of the business community”. We find equally unconvincing petitioners’ attempt to now distinguish Dandy Products on the basis that the prize contests etc. there alluded to as furnishing the predicate for a change in the standards by which to measure the fairness of merchandising methods were not, as here, the subject matter of proof contained in the record.

We adhere to our reliance upon Keppel and we regard Dandy Products as dis-positive of the refurbished and embellished contentions made by the petitioners.

The petition to set aside, revise or remand the order of the Commission is denied ; the order is affirmed, and will be enforced.

Order affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1971: 119712026peak 1971 · 1

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. R. F. Keppel & Bro. Inc., 291 U.S. 304 (1934) 152
Dandy Prods., Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 332 F.2d 985 (7th Cir. 1964) 1

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list