generic advertising

Below are two different general types of generic advertising used by these groups.

But the generic advertising program did not raise those concerns, Justice Stevens said.

Search engines and generic advertising and content, he said, are nearly irrelevant.

This summer the industry is contemplating a generic advertising campaign to promote all of video as a medium of home entertainment.

Democratic Party officials say they expect to spent as much as $12 million on generic advertising that does not mention their candidates by name.

And they say that this method allows the the national committee to spend at least $1 million more on generic advertising before the election is over.

Some distributors favor a generic advertising campaign to promote the medium; others favor a more aggressive, title-specific approach.

Many producers dislike the mandatory assessments and have been challenging the generic advertising as government-compelled commercial speech that violates the First Amendment.

The Dole campaign, running on empty, has no recourse but to rely on the Republican National Committee to counter with less-effective generic advertising.

"We could be faced with a situation where in the early spring the Republicans begin generic advertising with soft money and never leave the air," Mr. Torricelli said.

One of the major battles in American farming in the past few years concerns the fees collected from farmers to pay for generic advertising like the familiar "Got Milk?"

Three years ago, the Supreme Court narrowly rejected a First Amendment challenge to the generic advertising program for California tree fruits, including peaches, plums and nectarines.

Under marketing orders that date from the 1930's, the department assesses each producer for a share of what is known as generic advertising - to promote California peaches, for example.

The Court narrowly upheld a New Deal-era Federal marketing law under which growers of various commodities, in this case certain California fruits, are required to contribute to generic advertising campaigns.

Republican Advertising Mr. Gejdenson, on the other hand, said Republicans benefit from millions of dollars in so-called generic advertising that urges people to back the entire Republican ticket.

"If you accept the limit and the rest don't, you can get swamped by that generic advertising that Republicans do and the Democrats don't," Mr. Gejdenson said.

Several Justices questioned Mr. Jenkins about the validity of the Government's interest in generic advertising, as opposed to permitting the growers to take the money and spend it on advertising their own products.

Fluid milk processors through a commodity checkoff program develop and finance generic advertising programs designed to maintain and expand markets and uses for fluid milk products produced in the United States.

Under an agricultural marketing law from the New Deal era, the Federal Government requires companies that pack and ship a variety of products to contribute to industrywide, generic advertising campaigns that urge consumers, for example, to "buy California peaches."

Mrs. Whitman has received endorsements from the editorial boards of most newspapers around the state, and the Republican National Party has been able to spend much more money on generic advertising and party organizing than its Democratic counterpart has.

The case, Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliott, No. 95-1184, was brought by a group of growers and processors of California nectarines, peaches and plums to protest their assessments for the generic advertising program.

Mr. Tribe said United Foods objected to being forced to pay for a generic advertising program that contained an implicit message with which it strongly disagreed, namely: "Brands don't make a difference, and if you've seen one mushroom, you've seen them all."

A dissident group of ranchers who believe their own beef to be superior and who see no benefit in generic advertising won a ruling from a federal appeals court that the assessment, usually referred to as a checkoff, violated their rights under the First Amendment.

Objectors to this and similar programs are typically family farmers or specialty producers who argue that they have nothing to gain, and in fact are harmed, by generic advertising that overwhelms their own efforts to persuade the public that their products are special and worth searching for.

These were some of the other developments at the court today: Mushroom Growers Accepting another government appeal, the court agreed to decide the constitutionality of a federal law that requires mushroom producers to pay into an Agriculture Department fund supporting generic advertising to encourage people to eat mushrooms.