Legal Opinion
B. Sanfield, Inc. v. Finlay Fine Jewelry Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decided February 17, 1999No. 98-1873PublishedCited by 62 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge.
B. Sanfield, Incorporated, and Finlay Fine Jewelry Corporation both purvey fine jewelry to the public in Rockford, Illinois. San-field filed suit against Finlay alleging that Finlay’s practice of advertising its jewelry at discounts of 40 to 60 percent off the regular price constitutes deceptive advertising under section 2 of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/2, and section 43(a) the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), because the “regular” price is, for practical purposes, a fiction. See F.T.C. v. Colgate-Palmolive…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Emil J. Bartholet v. Reishauer A.G. (Zurich) and Reishauer Corporation (Elgin)Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992
- Abbott Laboratories v. Mead Johnson & CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992
- Federal Trade Commission v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1965
- United Industries Corp. v. Clorox Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1998
- Martin v. Heinold Commodities, Inc.Illinois Supreme Court · 1994
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by62 opinions
- Hot Wax, Inc. v. Turtle Wax, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1999
- Zenith Electronics Corporation, and Elo Touchsystems, Inc. v. Exzec, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1999
- Barbara M. Ryan and William O. Gillespie v. Illinois Department of Children and Family ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1999
- Cashmere & Camel Hair Manufacturers Institute v. Saks Fifth AvenueCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2002
- Mulligan v. QVC, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 2008
57 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.