Legal Opinion
Federal Trade Commission v. Winsted Hosiery Co.
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided May 1, 1922No. 333PublishedCited by 147 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Brandéis
delivered the opinion of the court.. The Winsted Hosiery Company has for many years manufactured underwear which it sells to ■ retailers throughout the United States. It brands or labels the cartons in which the underwear is sold, as “'Natural Merino “ Gray Wool ”, “ Natural Wool ”, “ Natural Worsted ”, or “Australian Wool ”. None of this underwear is all. wool. ' Much of it contains only a small percentage of. wool; some as little as ten per cent. The Federal Trade' Commission instituted a complaint under § 5 of the Act.-, of September 26, 1914, c. 311, 38 Stat. 717, 719,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Manhattan Medicine Co. v. WoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Worden v. California Fig Syrup Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Coca Cola Co. v. Gay-Ola Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1912
- New England Awl & Needle Co. v. Marlborough Awl & Needle Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897
- Von Mumm v. FrashU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York · 1893
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by147 opinions
- Matal v. TamSupreme Court of the United States · 2017
- Champion Spark Plug Co. v. SandersSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Jacob Siegel Co. v. Federal Trade CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Federal Trade Commission v. Raladam Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Federal Trade Commission v. Algoma Lumber Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1934
142 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.