Marlene's, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission

12 Citing cases

  1. National Lead Company v. Federal Trade Comm

    227 F.2d 825 (7th Cir. 1955)   Cited 18 times
    In National Lead Co. v. F.T.C., 227 F.2d 825 (7th Cir. 1955), reversed on other grounds, 352 U.S. 419, 77 S.Ct. 502, 1 L.Ed.2d 438 (1957) a cease and desist order against the parent corporation charged with the unlawful acts of its subsidiaries was set aside.

    Despite this finding, the Commission's order, issued in 1953, runs against International as well as the other petitioners and Glidden. In Marlene's, Inc., v. F.T.C., 7 Cir., 216 F.2d 556, we had occasion to consider a similar situation. What we there said in reviewing decisions relative to the discretion lodged in the Commission to enter orders against discontinued practices is pertinent here; it need not be repeated.

  2. Benrus Watch Company v. F.T.C

    352 F.2d 313 (8th Cir. 1965)   Cited 19 times
    In Benrus Watch Co. v. FTC, 352 F.2d 313, 324-25 (8th Cir. 1965), cert. denied 384 U.S. 939, 86 S.Ct. 1457, 16 L.Ed.2d 538 (1966), the FTC filed its complaint because, inter alia, Benrus Watch Company had preticketed its watches with a price far above the regular retail price.

    Whether such an order should be entered in a case where the unlawful practice has been abandoned is a question which rests within the sound discretion of the Commission. See in this connection: Giant Foods, Inc. v. F.T.C., 116 U.S.App.D.C. 227, 322 F.2d 977; Marlene's Inc. v. F.T.C., 7 Cir., 216 F.2d 556; New Standard Publishing Co. v. F.T.C., 4 Cir., 194 F.2d 181; Oregon-Washington Plywood Co. v. F.T.C., 9 Cir., 194 F.2d 48; Deer v. F.T.C., 2 Cir., 152 F.2d 65; Eugene Dietzgen Co. v. F.T.C., 7 Cir., 142 F.2d 321. The Commission did not quarrel with the finding of the Examiner that the original deceptive practices relative to guarantees had been abandoned, and we think that the Commission might well have upheld the Examiner in dismissing the charge relating to the guarantees.

  3. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc. v. Federal Trade Comm

    246 F.2d 458 (7th Cir. 1957)   Cited 2 times

    They cite our language in National Lead Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, supra, 227 F.2d at page 839, "* * * While the Commission is vested with a broad discretion to determine whether an order is needed to prevent the resumption of unlawful acts which have been discontinued, this `discretion must be confined * * * within the bounds of reasonableness.' [citing Marlene's Inc. v. F.T.C., 7 Cir., 216 F.2d 556, at page 559]. "This rule of reasonableness requires something more than a mere guess or suspicion contrary to the evidence and to the finding of the trial examiner that a resumption of discontinued practices may not reasonably be anticipated. * * *"

  4. COMMONWEALTH v. TAP PHARM. PRODUCTS

    No. 212 M.D. 2004 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Aug. 31, 2011)

    Nevertheless, the FTC may not issue a cease and desist order to restrain a practice long discontinued and where there is no reason to believe it will be renewed. Rodale Press, Inc. v. Federal TradeCommission, 407 F.2d 1252 (D.C. Cir. 1968); Marlene's Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 216 F.2d 556 (7th Cir. 1954). The result is different where the defendant claims the right to renew the practice.

  5. Cotherman v. F.T.C

    417 F.2d 587 (5th Cir. 1969)   Cited 18 times

    B. The petitioners' third argument is that the cease and desist order should be dismissed against them because they have signed affidavits promising never to enter the lending business again. Courts properly leave to the Commission's non-abusive discretion the question whether the public interest requires the protection of an order in cases where unlawful practices have been discontinued. See Carter Products, Inc. v. FTC, 5 Cir. 1963, 323 F.2d 523, 531; Marlene's, Inc. v. FTC, 7 Cir. 1954, 216 F.2d 556, 559-560; Keasbey Mattison Co. v. FTC, 6 Cir. 1947, 159 F.2d 940, 951. In deciding whether the public interest required a cease and desist order, the Commission had before it all the facts concerning the petitioners' deceptive practices and concluded:

  6. Stauffer Laboratories, Inc. v. F.T.C

    343 F.2d 75 (9th Cir. 1965)   Cited 5 times   1 Legal Analyses

    This compendium of false advertising claims in connection with weight-reduction provides additional support for the Commission's effort to induce complete truth in the advertising of products in that field. E. Griffiths Hughes, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 2 Cir., 77 F.2d 886 (Bath salts claimed to help reducing); Alberty v. Federal Trade Commission, 9 Cir., 118 F.2d 669 (Cheno Tea claimed to cause loss of weight); Stanton v. Federal Trade Commission, 10 Cir., 131 F.2d 105 (Anti-Fat Tablets — a formula including extract of Pokeberries and Bladder Wrack); Federal Trade Comm'n v. Raladam Co., 316 U.S. 149, 62 S.Ct. 966, 86 L.Ed. 1336 (a thyroid compound potentially harmful to health); American Medicinal Products v. Federal Trade Commission, 136 F.2d 426, 9 Cir., (Re-Duce-Oids, a thyroid compound), Marlene's, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 7 Cir., 216 F.2d 556; (Mynex — a drug sold in conjunction with a diet plan); Bakers Franchise Corporation v. F.T.C., 302 F.2d 258, 3 Cir., (Lite-Diet Bread — an allegedly low-calorie bread that in fact was only sliced thinner than other bread); Damar Products, Inc. v. United States, supra, 309 F.2d 323 (an oscillating machine sold in conjunction with a diet plan). The order of the Commission is affirmed.

  7. Clinton Watch Company v. F.T.C

    291 F.2d 838 (7th Cir. 1961)   Cited 10 times

    Other than the mere discontinuance at an undisclosed time of their practice relating to the guarantee of their merchandise, petitioners have shown no facts before the Commission which would require that this portion of the order be set aside. Cf. Eugene Dietzgen Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 7 Cir., 1944, 142 F.2d 321, 330, certiorari denied 323 U.S. 730, 65 S.Ct. 66, 89 L.Ed. 586; Galter v. Federal Trade Commission, 7 Cir., 1951, 186 F.2d 810, 813, certiorari denied 342 U.S. 818, 72 S.Ct. 34, 96 L.Ed. 619; Marlene's, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 7 Cir., 1954, 216 F.2d 556, 559. The Commission has authority to bind Cogan and Magnus in their capacities as corporate officials through whom Clinton Watch Company must operate in the transaction of its practices.

  8. Carter Products, Inc. v. F.T.C

    268 F.2d 461 (9th Cir. 1959)   Cited 22 times
    In Carter Products, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 268 F.2d 461, 498 (9th Cir. 1959), we said the Commission has prime responsibility to fashion an order that will eliminate the deceptive practices disclosed by the record.

    In view of this situation and under all of the circumstances of this case we conclude, and therefore hold, that the Commission did not abuse its discretion in issuing this Order. See Marlene's Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 7 Cir., 216 F.2d 556, 559, 560. The petition of Carter to reverse and set aside the Cease and Desist Order of the Commission is denied.

  9. Goodman v. Federal Trade Commission

    244 F.2d 584 (9th Cir. 1957)   Cited 65 times
    Finding that, under the circumstances, seller's representations about the "ease" of learning how to weave from seller's products were deceptive

    This accords with the general attitude of the courts to respect the judgment of regulatory agencies as to the scope of an order if it appears that it could reasonably have concluded that the order was necessary. Marlene's v. Federal Trade Commission, 7 Cir., 1954, 216 F.2d 556, 559-560. May Dept. Stores Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 1945, 326 U.S. 376, 390, 66 S.Ct. 203, 90 L.Ed. 145; and see, Federal Trade Commission v. National Lead Co., 1956, 352 U.S. 419, 77 S.Ct. 502, 1 L.Ed.2d 438.

  10. Commonwealth v. Tap Pharm. Prods., Inc.

    36 A.3d 1112 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2011)   Cited 33 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Commonwealth v. TAP Pharmaceutical Products, [36 A.3d 1112 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011), vacated and remanded, 626 Pa. 1, 94 A.3d 350 (2014),] the trial court analyzed the term ‘person’ and concluded that the Commonwealth was a public entity entitled to restoration under the statute.

    Nevertheless, the FTC may not issue a cease and desist order to restrain a practice long discontinued and where there is no reason to believe it will be renewed. Rodale Press, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 407 F.2d 1252 (D.C.Cir.1968); Marlene's Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 216 F.2d 556 (7th Cir.1954). The result is different where the defendant claims the right to renew the practice.