v. Montgomery Light & Water Power Co., (See also New York Phonograph Co. v. INDUCING CUSTOMERS OF COMPETITORS TO The persuading, inducing, or attempt- RIGHT TO COMPETE NO LICENSE TO IN- “The right to compete in business does (See also Filler v. Joseph Schlitz Brew- PROCURING BREACH BY LAWFUL MEANS Where a person purchased property NO RELIEF AGAINST THE BREACH OF AN Injunction will not be granted to re- CURRENT ARTICLES AND DISCUSSION. Interference with business or occupa- Interference with Performance of con- CONVERSION. [See also Appropriation.] 1. Taking and using goods belonging to a competitor.--Accepting COPYING ANOTHER'S ADVERTISEMENTS. [See Appropriation.] CUTTING OFF COMPETITOR'S ADVERTISING MEDIUM. a competitor's advertisements, by means of false and misleading statements relative to said competitor's financial condition and standing, held, under the circumstances set forth, to constitute unfair method of competition. (Chicago Linotabler Co., 1 F. T. C. 110.) CUTTING OFF COMPETITOR'S SUPPLIES. [See also: Boycott; Conspiracy; Refusal to sell.] 1. Interfering on the part of retailer with the supply of mail-order concerns.-Inducing and endeavoring to induce, on the part of a corporation engaged in the publication of a trade journal, manufacturers and wholesalers of lumber and building materials to refrain from and to discontinue furnishing supplies of lumber and building materials to mail-order concerns dealing in the same, in competition with retailers, by means of actual and implied threats that retail dealers should withdraw their patronage, held to constitute an unfair method of competition. (Botsford Lumber Co. et al., 1 F. T. C. 60.) 2. Same. Furnishing systematically on a large scale and in bad faith, on the part of a number of concerns engaged in the sale of lumber and lumber products at retail, to the editor and manager of a trade journal, the names of manufacturers and wholesalers who sold to mail-order concerns competing with said retailers, for the purpose of enabling him to interfere with the free purchase of supplies by them, held to constitute an unfair method of competition. (Botsford Lumber Co. et al., 1 F. T. C. 60.) 3. Same.-Inducing and endeavoring to induce systematically on a large scale and in bad faith, on the part of a number of concerns engaged in the sale of lumber and lumber products at retail, manufacturers and wholesalers of lumber and building materials to refrain · from selling lumber and building materials to mail-order concerns, held to constitute an unfair method of competition. (Botsford Lumber Co. et al., 1 F. T. C. 60.) 4. By exclusive contracts with vendors thereof.-Purchasing gummed sealing tape on the part of a manufacturer of gummed-tape moistening machines from the manufacturers of such tape upon the condition or understanding that they should not sell the same to any of his competitors, held to constitute an unfair method of competition. (National Binding Machine Co., 1 F. T. C. 44.) 5. Paying prohibitive prices for raw material.—Where, in order to punish a competitor which had begun to purchase raw material in the territory in which they had been operating, concerns engaged in the rendering business in one State, acting through a corporation organized by them for that purpose, paid prohibitive and unwarranted prices for materials in another State, where said competitor was doing business, with resulting loss of money to said competitor and to its successor to which it was forced by said loss to sell, held, 6. Wrongfully retaining possession of competitor's goods.-Willful PERSUASION OR OTHER MEANS NOT UN- The interference by a combination of BOYCOTTING AND THREATENING TO BOY- "A combination between members of a located in other States, who sold to such See also decree entered in U. S. v. "An agreement or combination be- DECEPTION. [See Confusion; Misrepresentation; Passing off; Simulation.] DEFAMATION. [See Disparagement.] DIRECT SELLING, PREVENTION OF. [See Blacklisting; Boycotting; Refusal to sell.] DISCRIMINATION. [See also, Blacklisting; Boycotting; Clayton Act; Price discrimination; Rebates; Refusal to sell.] 1. Refusing membership to trade association. Declining, on the part of the members of an unincorporated association engaged in the distribution and sale of harness and saddlery goods at wholesale, to admit to membership in the wholesale association jobbers or wholesalers who did any retail business, and preventing and endeavoring to prevent manufacturers from selling to such jobbers, though allowing its own members at times to do a retail business, held, under the circumstances set forth, to constitute an unfair method of competition. (The Wholesale Saddlery Association of the United States and The National Harness Manufacturers Association of the United States, 1 F. T. C. 335.) DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN CUSTOMERS AS TO SERVICE DISCOUNTS AND REBATES was condemned in a decree of the United States district court in U. S. v. Great Lakes Towing Co., 253 (217 Fed. 656).Decrees and Judgments in Federal Antitrust Cases. DISPARAGEMENT. [See Misrepresentation.] 1. Falsely and misleadingly representing competitor's affiliations. Falsely and misleadingly stating, on the part of a mail-order house dealing in lumber and building materials, that certain of its competitors were members of a lumber trust which fixed and maintained excessive and unreasonable prices, held to constitute an unfair method of competition. (Gordon Van Tyne Co., 1 F. T. C. 316.) 2. Same. False representations, on the part of a corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of lumber and building materials and belonging to the class usually referred to as "catalogue or mail order houses,' as distinguished from so-called "regular dealers," through advertisements and circulars letters, that certain competitors, the "regular dealers," were members of a lumber trust, and by implication that such competitors fixed and maintained prices, held, under the circumstances set forth, to constitute an unfair method of competition. (Chicago Mill Works Supply Co., 1 F. T. C. 488.) 3. False and misleading statements as to financial responsibility of competitors. Circulating false and misleading statements, on the part of a manufacturer and vendor of a stain remover, to the effect that certain competitors were financially irresponsible, held to be an unfair method of competition. (Gartside Iron Rust Soap Co., 4. Same. Making false and injurious statements to prospective 5. Falsely and injuriously representing quality of competitor's 6. False statements as to efficiency, etc., of competitors' goods.- 7. Depreciating value and worth of competitor's goods.-A corpora- 8. False and misleading representations as to the justice and honesty 9. False and disparaging statements of competitor's business.— |