Publishing, Entertainment, Advertising and Allied Fields Law Quarterly, 14. sējumsCallaghan & Company, 1975 |
No grāmatas satura
1.–3. rezultāts no 89.
37. lappuse
... AMENDMENT A. THE COMMERCIAL EXCEPTION The doctrine that the protections of the first amendment do not apply to commercial advertising was abruptly announced in 1942 , in Valentine v . Chrestensen.48 Citing no authority and discussing no ...
... AMENDMENT A. THE COMMERCIAL EXCEPTION The doctrine that the protections of the first amendment do not apply to commercial advertising was abruptly announced in 1942 , in Valentine v . Chrestensen.48 Citing no authority and discussing no ...
219. lappuse
... Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail , rather than to countenance monopolization of that market , whether it be by Government itself or a private licensee . " The Democratic ...
... Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail , rather than to countenance monopolization of that market , whether it be by Government itself or a private licensee . " The Democratic ...
234. lappuse
... Amendment for all the people and not merely for a select few . The First Amendment did not create a privileged class which through a monopoly of instruments of the newspa- per industry would be able to deny to the people the freedom -of ...
... Amendment for all the people and not merely for a select few . The First Amendment did not create a privileged class which through a monopoly of instruments of the newspa- per industry would be able to deny to the people the freedom -of ...
Saturs
Current Cases | 1 |
Current FTC and other Actions | 17 |
The Regulation of Corporate Image Advertising | 29 |
Autortiesības | |
14 citas sadaļas nav parādītas.
Citi izdevumi - Skatīt visu
Bieži izmantoti vārdi un frāzes
2d Cir action Amendment Appeals applied artist broadcasting buyer cable television cert character charged claims commercial Commission common law Communications Compco complaint consent order constitutional consumer copy Corp corporate image advertising cost Court found Court held D.C. Cir damages Day-Brite Lighting deceptive decision defamation Defendant Defendant's denied design patent effect expression fact fairness doctrine false federal Federal Trade Commission freedom function functionality doctrine gag orders granted imitation infringement injunction involved Justice Lanham Act libel licensees limited ment newspaper obscene opinion performance person Plaintiff political Principal Register prohibit promotional public interest public issues published reasonable registration regulation Robinson-Patman Act rule section 2(d seller speech statements statute statutory style substantial Supp Supplemental Register supra note Supreme Court text accompanying notes tion trade trademark protection unfair competition utility patent violation