|
United States v. Sealy, Inc., 388 U.S. 350 (1967)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
United States v. Sealy, Inc., 388 U.S. 350 (1967)
United States v. Sealy, Inc. No. 9 Argued April 20, 1967 Decided June 12, 1967 388 U.S. 350
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Syllabus
The United States brought this civil action for violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act against appellee, the owner of the trademarks for Sealy branded mattresses and bedding products which it licensed manufacturers in various parts of the country to produce and sell under a territorial allocation system. Sealy agreed with each licensee not to license anyone else to manufacture or sell in a designated area and the licensee agreed not to manufacture or sell Sealy products outside that area. The Sealy licensees own substantially all appellee’s stock and control its day-to-day operations, including the assignment and termination of the exclusive territorial licenses. Appellee was charged with conspiring with its licensees to fix the prices at which their retail customers might resell Sealy products and to allocate mutually exclusive territories among the licensees. The District Court after trial enjoined appellee from price-fixing, and no appeal was taken. It also ruled that Sealy’s allocation of territories to its licensees did not violate § 1, and the Government appealed from that holding.
Held:
1. The territorial allocations here are not vertical arrangements imposed by the licensor, but horizontal restraints arranged by the licensees.
Sealy was a joint venture of, by, and for its stockholder-licensees . . . and [they] are themselves directly, without even the semblance of insulation, in charge of Sealy’s operations.
White Motor Co. v. United States, 372 U.S. 253 (1963), distinguished. Pp. 352-354.
2. The territorial restraints were a part of the unlawful price-fixing and policing activities of Sealy operating as an instrumentality of the licensees and constituted "an aggregation of trade restraints" which was illegal per se. Pp. 354-358.
Reversed.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," United States v. Sealy, Inc., 388 U.S. 350 (1967) in 388 U.S. 350 388 U.S. 351. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=B5S2PTRLI8JQXBB.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." United States v. Sealy, Inc., 388 U.S. 350 (1967), in 388 U.S. 350, page 388 U.S. 351. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=B5S2PTRLI8JQXBB.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in United States v. Sealy, Inc., 388 U.S. 350 (1967). cited in 1967, 388 U.S. 350, pp.388 U.S. 351. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=B5S2PTRLI8JQXBB.
|