27 C.F.R. § 6.98

Advertising service

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

The listing of the names and addresses of two or more unaffiliated retailers selling the products of an industry member in an advertisement of that industry member does not constitute a means to induce within the meaning of section 105(b)(3) of the Act, provided:

(a) The advertisement does not also contain the retail price of the product (except where the exclusive retailer in the jurisdiction is a State or a political subdivision of a State), and

(b) The listing is the only reference to the retailers in the advertisement and is relatively inconspicuous in relation to the advertisement as a whole, and

(c) The advertisement does not refer only to one retailer or only to retail establishments controlled directly or indirectly by the same retailer, except where the retailer is an agency of a State or a political subdivision of a State.

[T.D. ATF-364, 60 FR 20423, Apr. 26, 1995]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1986–1988 · leading case: Foremost Sales Promotions, Inc. v. Dir., Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, 642 F. Supp. 1025 (N.D. Ill. 1986).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Foremost Sales Promotions, Inc. v. Dir., Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, 642 F. Supp. 1025 (N.D. Ill. 1986). “27 C.F.R. § 6.98 . Foremost retailers are free to feature any brand in whatever advertising they do beyond the weekly newspaper ads placed by Foremost.”

Foremost Sales Promotions, Inc. v. Dir., Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, 860 F.2d 229 (7th Cir. 1988). “27 C.F.R. § 6.98 (1988). Though this regulation suggests that the Bureau views certain practices as falling below the statutory threshold, it does not purport to parse the critical phrase “exclusion in whole or in part.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.