View Single Post
  #7  
Old 10-22-2021, 09:55 AM
ALR-bishop ALR-bishop is offline
Al Richter
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 9,389
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
I’ll stand corrected and rephrase to if “Fleer had not lost suits with Topps and had to sell their cards with crappy cookies instead of gum”.

Agree. Fleer filed several FTC complaints in the 60s asking that Topps be found in violation of the antitrust laws. The FTC initially agreed with Fleer, but the courts reversed their decision finding that the Topps player contracts were exclusive only to the marketing of player likenesses with confections and that Fleer could market their cards by themselves or with other items

Lot of folks do not like gum stains on their cards. I really like them

https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2019/01/ba...fleer-v-topps/

Last edited by ALR-bishop; 10-22-2021 at 09:56 AM.
Reply With Quote