Millinery Creators' Guild, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision. The 15 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Mastercrafters Clock & Radio Co. v. Vacheron & Constantin-Le Coultre Watches, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1954)
- United States Golf Association v. St. Andrews Systems, Data-Max, Inc. (3d Cir. 1984)
- Ives Laboratories, Inc. v. Darby Drug Co., Inc. (District Court, E.D. New York 1978)
- Community Blood Bank of the Kansas City Area, Inc., a Corporation v. Federal Trade Commission (8th Cir. 1969)
- American Safety Table Co. v. Schreiber (2d Cir. 1959)
- Standard Oil Company of California v. Moore (9th Cir. 1958)
- Continental Casualty Company v. Beardsley (District Court, S.D. New York 1957)
- Standard Oil Co. v. Moore (9th Cir. 1957)
- Hartford Charga-Plate Associates, Incorporated v. Youth Centre-Cinderella Stores, Inc., Defendant-Respondent (2d Cir. 1954)
- Verney Corporation v. Rose Fabric Converters Corp. (District Court, S.D. New York 1949)
- Aldrich v. Remington Rand, Inc. (District Court, N.D. Texas 1942)
- United States v. Aluminum Co. of America (2d Cir. 1945)
- United States v. Insurance Board of Cleveland (District Court, N.D. Ohio 1956)
- Dior v. Milton (New York Supreme Court 1956)
- United Merchants & Manufacturers, Inc. v. Bromley Fabrics, Inc. (New York Supreme Court 1955)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
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
*472 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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.