MILLINERY CREATOR'S GUILD, INC. (FORMERLY MILLINERY QUALITY GUILD, INC.), ET AL.
v.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Court affirmed the FTC's order against the Millinery Creator's Guild, finding their practices constituted unfair methods of competition tending to monopoly.
The Millinery Creator's Guild operated a plan similar to the Fashion Originators' Guild, which was found to restrain commerce by eliminating manufactu…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Unfair Methods Of Competition cases and more on FLexlaw
Mr. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents virtually the same issues as Fashion Originators’ Guild of America v. Federal Trade Comm’n, ante, p. 457. Here, as in that case, the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a Federal Trade Commission decree ordering the petitioners to cease and desist from certain practices found to have been done in combination and to constitute “unfair methods of competition” tending to monopoly.1 The members of the Guild involved in this case are designers and manufacturers of women’s hats. Their Guild operates a plan modelled after that of the Fashion Originators’ Guild of America, Inc. It was stipulated by the parties that “The capacity, tendency, purpose, and result of the plan . . . and the acts and practices performed thereunder . . . have been, and now are, to restrain commerce by eliminating manufacturers of stylish hats ... as to the outlets of their products and by limiting the retail dealers ... as to their source of supply, and to deprive the public of the benefits, if any, of competition as to price or otherwise among retailers of stylish hats in this respect . . .” Pursuant to the evidence and to the stipulation containing this statement, the Commission found that the effect of the plan was “unduly to hinder competition and to create monopoly in the sale of women’s hats in interstate commerce.”
The respects in which the plan of the Millinery Creator’s Guild differs from that of the Fashion Originators’ Guild are not material, and need not be set out in detail. Nor need the findings of the Commission be enumerated here. The Commission did find that the Millinery Creator’s Guild had tended to hinder competition and create monopoly “By depriving the public of the benefits of normal price competition among retailers of stylish hats for women,” a finding not made in the other case, but the presence or absence of such a finding is not determinative here. On the authority of Fashion Originators’ Guild of America v. Federal Trade Comm’n, the decision below is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945)…hat “the practices of FOGA were reasonable and necessary to protect the manufacturer, laborer, retailer and consumer against devastating evils growing from the pirating of original designs and had in fact benefitted all four.” (312 U.S. at page 467, 61 S.Ct. 708). All such evidence the Commission refused to hear, raising as sharply as possible the issue whether the combination could excuse itself as “reasonable” because of the benefits it conferred upon the industry. The court sustained the Commission bec…1 / 2
-
Standard OIL Co. OF Cal. v. Moore, 251 F.2d 188 (9th Cir. 1957)…t. 259, 95 L.Ed. 219; Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 65 S.Ct. 1416, 89 L.Ed. 2013; United States v. Frankfort Distilleries, Inc., 324 U.S. 293, 65 S.Ct. 661, 89 L.Ed. 951; Millinery Creators’ Guild, Inc., v. Federal Trade Commission, 312 U.S. 469, 61 S.Ct. 708, 85 L.Ed. 955; Fashion Originators’ Guild v. Federal Trade Commission, 312 U.S. 457, 61 S.Ct. 703, 85 L.Ed. 949. . Fashion Originators’ Guild v. Federal Trade Commission, supra; Report of the Attorney General’s National Committee, sup…
-
Am. Safety Table Co., Inc. v. Schreiber, 269 F.2d 255 (2d Cir. 1959)…ublic good. See Cheney Bros. v. Doris Silk Corp., 2 Cir., 1929, 35 F. 2d 279, certiorari denied 281 U.S. 728, 50 S.Ct. 245, 74 L.Ed. 1145; Millinery Creators’ Guild, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 2 Cir., 1940, 109 F. 2d 175, 177, affirmed, 1941, 312 U.S. 469, 61 S.Ct. 708, 85 L.Ed. 955; J. C. Penney Co. v. H. D. Lee Mercantile Co., 8 Cir., 1941, 120 F. 2d 949, 953, 958; Huston v. Buckeye Bait Corp., D.C.S.D.Ohio, 1955, 145 F.Supp. 600, 606, affirmed 6 Cir., 1956, 237 F. 2d 920. For imitation is the life…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Millinery Creators' Guild, Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 109 F.2d 175 (2d Cir. 1940)