opinion: J. C. MARTIN CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Respondent.
  No. 15068.
  United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
  Argued May 3, 1965.
  Decided May 26, 1965.
  Rehearing Denied July 15, 1965.
  Miles Warner, Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner.
  Frank Gregory, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D. C. (James Mcl. Henderson, General Counsel, J. B. Truly, Asst. General Counsel, on the brief), for respondent.
  Before KALODNER, HASTIE and FREEDMAN, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM.
  This is a petition to review and set aside an Order of the Federal Trade Commission at the close of an administrative proceeding upon a complaint charging petitioner with having engaged in unfair acts and practices in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 66 Stat. 632 (1952), 15 U.S.C.A. § 45(a). The Order directed the petitioner and others to cease and desist from merchandising by means of a game of chance, gift enterprise or lottery scheme.
  On review of the record we are of the opinion that it presents substantial, and competent evidence to support the Commission’s findings and Order. We are further of the opinion that the former proceeding of the Commission against the petitioner and others, J. C. Martin Corp. v. Federal Trade Commission, 242 F.2d 530 (7 Cir. 1957), did not bar its prosecution of the instant proceeding by reason of res adjudicata or collateral estoppel.
  For the reasons stated the Order of the Commission will be affirmed and enforced.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
  Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
  When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 
  
  Your task concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "unclear". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.
choices: auto industry chemical industry drug industry food industry oil & gas industry clothing & textile industry electronic industry alcohol and tobacco industry other unclear