Theodore Kagen Corp., a Corporation v. Federal Trade Commission

D.C. Circuit

Theodore Kagen Corp., a Corporation v. Federal Trade Commission

283 F.2d 371, 109 U.S. App. D.C. 7, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 3676, 1960 Trade Cas. (CCH) 69,815

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedSeptember 29, 1960

Docket15541

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 283 F.2d 371 (Theodore Kagen Corp., a Corporation v. Federal Trade Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Theodore Kagen Corp., a Corporation v. Federal Trade Commission, 283 F.2d 371, 109 U.S. App. D.C. 7, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 3676, 1960 Trade Cas. (CCH) 69,815 (D.C. Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Oral testimony together with exhibits convinced the Commission that base-metal bezels of petitioners’ watch cases could be mistaken for precious metals, because of their appearance, in the absence of clear disclosure to the contrary. Substantial evidence supports this finding. The Commission ordered petitioners to cease “Offering for sale or selling watch cases composed in whole or in part of base metal which has been treated to simulate precious metal, without clearly disclosing on such cases the true metal composition of such treated eases or parts.” Commission counsel advised us in oral argument, in response to a question from the bench, that the order may be interpreted to require no more detailed disclosure than that the treated cases or parts are composed of base metal. As so interpreted, the order is

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Oral testimony together with exhibits convinced the Commission that base-metal bezels of petitioners’ watch cases could be mistaken for precious metals, because of their appearance, in the absence of clear disclosure to the contrary. Substantial evidence supports this finding. The Commission ordered petitioners to cease “Offering for sale or selling watch cases composed in whole or in part of base metal which has been treated to simulate precious metal, without clearly disclosing on such cases the true metal composition of such treated eases or parts.” Commission counsel advised us in oral argument, in response to a question from the bench, that the order may be interpreted to require no more detailed disclosure than that the treated cases or parts are composed of base metal. As so interpreted, the order is

Affirmed.

Benrus Watch Company, Inc., a Corporation, Belforte Watch Company, Inc., a Corporation, and Oscar M. Lazrus, Individually and as an Officer of Aforesaid Corporations, and Harvey M. Bond, Stanley M. Karp, Samuel M. Feldberg, Jay K. Lazrus, Robert Weil, Martin J. Rasnow, Leo Hyman, and Julian Lazrus, Individually and as Officers of Benrus Watch Company, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, Clifford Seigmeister v. Federal Trade Commission

352 F.2d 313 (Eighth Circuit, 1965)

Benrus Watch Co. v. Federal Trade Commission

352 F.2d 313 (Eighth Circuit, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 F.2d 371, 109 U.S. App. D.C. 7, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 3676, 1960 Trade Cas. (CCH) 69,815, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/theodore-kagen-corp-a-corporation-v-federal-trade-commission-cadc-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack