TITLE

I. REGULATION OF MONOPOLISTIC METHODS

AUTHOR(S)
Curran, Kenneth J.
PUB. DATE
October 1956
SOURCE
Journal of Marketing;Oct56, Vol. 21 Issue 2, p229
SOURCE TYPE
Academic Journal
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
The article presents information on legal developments in marketing relative to the regulation of monopolistic methods. The article discusses the significance of The Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 which addresses concerns about the concentration of economic power in the banking industry. Additionally, the article discusses Supreme Court case United States v. E.I. duPont de Nemours and Company and its acquittal of duPont of monopolization charges. In regard to collusive practices, the article discusses William Radovich v. National Football League, et al and the applicability of antitrust laws to professional football.
ACCESSION #
25786423

 

Related Articles

  • REGULATION OF MONOPOLISTIC METHODS. Werner, Ray O.; Griffiths, L.C.; Kirk-Duggan, Michael K. // Journal of Marketing;Jul1991, Vol. 55 Issue 3, p60 

    The article presents information on legal developments in marketing relative to the regulation of monopolistic methods. In regard to market control, the article discusses the implications of U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., et al., where Du Pont agreed to...

  • I. REGULATION OF MONOPOLISTIC METHODS. Curran, Kenneth J. // Journal of Marketing;Oct61, Vol. 25 Issue 6, p77 

    The article presents legal developments in marketing with focus on the regulation of monopolistic methods. One of the developments describes the case of United States v. Pan American World Airways Inc, W. R. Grace & Co., et al., dealing with the divestment of the joint venture between the two...

  • Unanimous: NFL loses bid for antitrust protection. Marion, Roddrick // Jackson Advocate;6/3/2010, Vol. 72 Issue 33, p14A 

    The article reports on the lawsuit filed by the American Needle Inc. against the National Football League (NFL) claiming that the NFL has violated anti-trust laws by giving Reebok International Ltd. an exclusive 10-year hatmaking deal.

  • HATS, BATS, AND ANTITRUST. Ingram, Kathleen // Mississippi Sports Law Review;Winter2011, Vol. 1 Issue 1, p131 

    The article discusses the May 24, 2010 ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court on the case, American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League (NFL). The Supreme Court ruled that the NFL remained subject to antitrust scrutiny as various entities acting as one. According to the author, a contrary...

  • REGULATION OF MONOPOLISTIC METHODS. Werner, Ray O.; Griffiths, L.C.; Duggan, Michael A. // Journal of Marketing;Jan1979, Vol. 43 Issue 1, p81 

    The article presents information on legal developments in marketing relative to the regulation of monopolistic methods. In regard to market control, the article addresses Applied Digital Technology, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co. where the Court of Appeals for the Seventh District found that...

  • IS THE NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE A "SINGLE ENTITY" INCAPABLE OF CONSPIRING UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT?: THE SUPREME COURT WILL DECIDE. Semeraro, Steven // Thomas Jefferson Law Review;Fall2009, Vol. 32 Issue 1, p1 

    The article discusses a court case wherein the American Needle Inc. litigated the National Football League (NFL) due to the alleged exclusive agreement of the NFL and Reebok International Ltd. to manufacturer caps with team logos. It alleges that NFL violated of the section 1 of the Sherman Act,...

  • AMERICAN NEEDLE, INC. V. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEA GUE.  // Berkeley Technology Law Journal;2011 Annual Review, Vol. 26 Issue 1, p911 

    The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court case American Needle Inc. v. National Football League (NFL) which deals with the intellectual property of NFL. A certiorari was granted by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court determined that NFL member teams do not own individual intellectual...

  • REGULATION OF MONOPOLISTIC METHODS. Werner, Ray O.; Duggan, Michael A. // Journal of Marketing;Summer83, Vol. 47 Issue 3, p113 

    The article presents legal developments in marketing relating the regulation of monopolistic methods. Regarding collusive practices, the case of Independence Tube Corp. v. Copperweld Corp. is discussed, involving illegal intercorporate conspiracy between a wholly owned subsidiary and its parent...

  • I. REGULATION OF MONOPOLISTIC METHODS. Phillips, Jr., Charles F. // Journal of Marketing;Oct66, Vol. 30 Issue 4, p66 

    The article presents legal developments in marketing relating to the regulation of monopolistic methods. Regarding market control, a case involving Inland Container Corp. is discussed, in which the United States Federal Trade Commission held that the company's acquisition of a shipping container...

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of THE LIBRARY OF VIRGINIA

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics