Wybrant System Products Corporation v. Federal Trade Commission
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1Per curiam
Petitioner’s advertisements were placed in newspapers with interstate circulation; and though designed primarily to sell their hair and scalp treatments, the material clearly was “likely to induce * * * indirectly the purchase of” the preparations that they also sold in substantial quantities for home use. 1 This is sufficient to establish the Commission’s jurisdiction under § 12(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 52(a) (1). Mueller v. United States, 5 Cir., 262 F.2d 443. The firm testimony of the Commission’s several expert witnesses that petitioners’ preparations and…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Dolcin Corp. v. Federal Trade CommissionCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1955
- Sidney J. Mueller v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1958
3Cited by3 opinions
- Keele Hair & Scalp Specialists, Inc. v. Federal Trade CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1960
- Ward Laboratories, Inc. v. Federal Trade CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1960
- Keele Hair & Scalp Specialists, Inc. v. Federal Trade CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1960