Topps Chewing Gum, Inc.
Volume 67 · 67 F.T.C. 744
Cite this decision
Topps Chewing Gum, Inc., 67 F.T.C. 744 (1965). Consumer Law Library, https://consumerlawlibrary.org/decisions/v067-0046
Report an error in this record (decision id v067-0046)
Cited by 0 later FTC decisions
Cites
- 67 F.T.C. 3 — ALUMINUM INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL. porne Busrness as SOUTHERN PATIO COMPANY, ETC cited_neutral
Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)
TOPPS CHEWING GUM, INC.
ORDER, OPINION, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT Docket 8463. Complaint, Jan. 30, 1962—Decision, Apr. 80, 1965 Order adopting in part and rejecting in part the initial decision in this proceed: ing and dismissing, for insufficiency of evidence, the complaint which charged the Nation’s largest manufacturer of bubble gum with headquarters in Brooklyn, N.Y., with using unfair methods of competition in gaining control of the baseball picture card industry. Complaint The Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that the above-named respondent has violated and is now violating the provisions of Section 5 of the Federal Trade. Commission Act (15 U.S.C. Section 45), and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereto would be in the public interest hereby issues its complaint, charging as follows: . Paracrary 1. Respondent is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with its principal office and place of business located at 254 36th Street, Brooklyn, New York. ...
Par. 2. Respondent is now, and has been for many years last past, engaged in the manufacture, distribution and sale of bubble gum. In “addition, respondent also sells picture cards, including cards containing the picture of a uniformed major league baseball player, or other professional athlete, manager or coach, either separately or in connection with the sale of its bubble gum products. Pan. 8. The respondent is now, and has been for many years last past, engaged in commerce, as “commerce” is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act. Respondent manufactures gum in its fac- 744, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Complaint 67 F.T.C.
3. Using the name “Kar-Chance Division of American Plas- “ties,” “Kar-Chance” or any other name of similar import to designate, describe, or refer to respondent’s business. It is further ordered, That the respondent herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon him of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which he has complied with this order. In' THE Matter oF