EXTENT OF PROTECTION.

The law of unfair competition seeks only to restrain fraudulent practices inducing confusion of goods and deception of the public, and it can not be used to prevent a defendant from adopting a trade-mark or label intended to attract attention and popularize its product, although it results, and is intended to result, in better enabling it to com

pete with complainant, where no deception or confusion of goods is caused or intended thereby. (G. W. Cole Co. v. American Cement & Oil Co., 130 Fed. 703.)

CURRENT ARTICLES AND DISCUSSION.

Use of one's own name, adoption by corporation, 20 Columbia Law Review 626, May, 1920..

CONSPIRACY.

See also Blacklisting; Boycotting; Cutting off supplies; Price cutting; Price discrimination; Price fixing; Price maintenance; Refusal to sell.]

I. To cut off supplies of competitors, 1-5.

II. To induce less favorable terms to competitors, 6-9.

III. To induce less favorable terms to objectionable competitors of customers, 10. IV. To maintain prices and allocate business, 11.

V. To prevent dealers buying direct, 12.

I. TO CUT OFF SUPPLIES OF COMPETITORS.

1. By jobbers.-Where certain jobbers in competition with a corporation in which retail grocers held stock but which did not limit its sales to stockholders, and did not sell to consumers, conspired to induce and compel a manufacturer's agent to whom all had severally given orders, to withhold its purchases, by threatening to refuse their own which had arrived and in the aggregate far exceeded their competitor's, held that such practices, under the circumstances set forth, constituted an unfair method of competition. (McKnight-Keaton Grocery Co. et al., 3 F. T. C. 87.)

2. By retailers.--Inducing and endeavoring to induce on the part of a number of corporations, firms, partnerships, and individuals 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, under the circumstances set forth, to constitute an unfair method of competition. (Botsford Lumber Co. et al., 1 F. T. C. p. 60.)

3. Same. Conspiring, on the part of an unincorporated association of retail harness dealers (engaged also to some extent in manufacturing) to influence the members of a wholesale association to prevent manufacturers from selling concerns which did a combined wholesale and retail business, held to be an unfair method of competition. (The Wholesale Saddlery Association of the United States and National Harness Manufacturers Association of the United States, 1 F. T. C. 335.)

4. By retailers and wholesalers.-Procuring, on the part of an unincorporated association of retail harness dealers (engaged also to

some extent in manufacturing) the members of the wholesale associa-
tion to refuse to sell mail-order houses, general stores, hardware
concerns and other competitors of the retail harness dealers, held,
under the circumstances set forth, to constitute an unfair method of
competition. (The Wholesale Saddlery Association of the United
States and National Harness Manufacturers Association of the United
States, 1 F. T. C. 335.)

TRADE COMMISSION HAS POWER TO PRE-
VENT COERCION TO SEPARATE JOBBING
AND RETAIL BUSINESS.

"Attempts by an association of harness
manufacturers and by a saddle maker's
association to coerce the separation of the
wholesale and retail harness dealers, by
refusing to recognize those who engage

both in the wholesale and retail trade as
authorized jobbers, and to prevent the
sale by manufacturers of accessories to
such persons, are unlawful and may be
restricted by order of the Federal Trade
Commission." (Syllabus.) (National
Harness Mfrs. Assn. v. Federal Trade
Commission, 268 Fed. 706.)

5. By wholesalers.-Inducing on the part of members of an unin-
corporated association engaged in the distribution and sale of har-
ness and saddlery goods at wholesale manufacturers to refuse to
sell to retailers who had previously been competitors of the whole-
salers by reason of doing both a wholesale and retail business; declin-
ing on the part of the same association to admit to membership
jobbers or wholesalers who did any retail business; and preventing
and endeavoring to prevent manufacturers from selling to such
jobbers, although allowing its own members at times to do a retail
business, held to be unfair methods of competition. (The Whole-
sale Saddlery Association of the United States and National Harness
Manufacturers Association of the United States, 1 F. T. C. 335.)

II. TO INDUCE LESS FAVORABLE TERMS TO COMPETITORS.

6. By brokers and jobbers.-Where certain brokers because of
coercion, persuasion, boycott, and threats to boycott on the part of
jobbers refused to sell at the usual price to jobbers to a corporation
competing with its customers and by them held not to conform to
certain standards, and advised manufacturers whom they repre-
sented not to sell at such prices, held, under the circumstances set
forth, to constitute an unfair method of competition. (Western
Sugar Refinery et al., 2 F. T. C. 151.)

"EVIDENCE HELD NOT TO SUSTAIN FIND-
ING OF FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
that brokers conspired with others to
induce food manufacturers and distrib-
utors, by coercion, persuasion, boycott,
or threats, to refuse to sell merchandise
directly to wholesale grocery concern at
the same prices and on same terms as to

its competitors, in violation of Federal
Trade Commission act, paragraph 5
(Comp. St., par. 8836e), prohibiting un-
fair methods of competition in interstate
commerce." (Syllabus.) (Western Su-
gar Refinery Co. v. Federal Trade Com-
mission 275 Fed. 725.)

7. Same. Agreeing and conspiring with jobbers, on the part of certain brokers, to refuse to sell upon the usual jobbing terms and prices to an objectionable competitor of said jobbers, and recommending the same course to their principals, and further compelling said "objectionable competitor" to purchase from and through them at higher prices than regular jobbers' prices, held, under the circumstances set forth, to constitute unfair methods of competition. (McKnight-Keaton Grocery Co. et al., 3 F. T. C. 87.)

8. Same. Certain brokers induced by coercion, intimidation, and threats of boycott by certain jobbers who had secretly agreed that a competitor which dealt in groceries at retail as well as wholesale and which had been purchasing supplies from manufacturers at regular jobbers' prices, was not entitled to and should not be permitted to continue purchasing from such, and other necessary wholesale sources of supply agreed and conspired among themselves and with said jobbers, and did (1) refuse to sell to it upon the usual jobbing terms and prices; (2) recommended, justified, and urged the same course upon other members; and (3) compelled it to purchase from and through said competing jobbers at prices exceeding regular jobbers' prices; held that such acts and practices of said brokers and jobbers, substantially as described, constitute unfair methods of competition. (Wholesale Grocers Association of El Paso, Tex.,

et al., 3 F. T. C. 109.)

9. By jobbers.--Certain jobbers in groceries for the purpose of preventing a competing corporation, in which a large number of retailers held stock and which sold to the retail trade generally, and only to such trade, and which had been purchasing from a large number of manufacturers at prices usually charged the jobbing trade, from purchasing from manufacturers and manufacturers' agents, secretly conspired among themselves, (1) to represent and did represent to various manufacturers and to brokers representing such manufacturers that said company should not be permitted to purchase from them at prices usually charged the jobbing trade, and (2) to induce and compel manufacturers and their agents by means of boycotts and threats of boycott to decline to sell to said company upon the terms usually given to jobbers; held that such agreement and understanding, carried out in the manner described, constituted an unfair method of competition. (Western Sugar Refinery et al., 2 F. T. C. 151.)

"EVIDENCE HELD TO SUSTAIN FINDING OF FEDERAL TRADE CONMISSION THAT jobbers entered into a conspiracy to induce, coerce, and compel manufacturers and distributors to refuse to sell directly to wholesale grocery concerns on the terms and prices charged competitors of such

concern, in violation of Federal Trade
Commission act, paragraph 5 (Comp. St.,
par. 8836e), prohibiting unfair methods
of competition in interstate commerce.
(Syllabus.) (Western Sugar Refinery
Co. v. Federal Trade Commission 275
Fed. 725.

"What the associated jobbers severally
did went beyond each of them refraining
altogether or to a less extent from buying
from manufacturers whose products were
sold directly to the Standard Grocery Co.
They combined and cooperated with
others to keep manufacturers willing to
do so from selling their products directly
to the Standard Grocery Co., and by that
means to obstruct or prevent that com-
pany from competing as a wholesaler in
territory sought to be appropriated by
dealers not doing a combined wholesale
and retail business. The combining of
wholesaling and retailing is not a novelty,

and is not unlawful. The success of the

concerted action participated in by the
petitioners meant the monopolizing of the
wholesale grocery business in the El Paso
territory by dealers not engaged in retail-
ing.

"We are of opinion that the practices
forbidden by the attacked order were
'unfair methods of competition in com-
merce,' within the meaning of the pro-
vision of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act, because, in the circum-
stances disclosed, they were against the
public policy evidenced by the Sherman
Act. Federal Trade Commission v.
Gratz, supra; National Harness Mfrs.
Association v. Federal Trade Commission
(C. C. A.) 268 Fed. 705." (Wholesale
Grocers Assn. of El Paso v. Federal Trade
Commission 277 Fed. 657, 664.)

III. TO INDUCE LESS FAVORABLE TERMS TO OBJECTIONABLE COMPETI-
TORS OF CUSTOMERS.

10. By manufacturers with brokers and jobbers.-Certain refiners of
sugar, principals of certain brokers, for the purpose of preventing a
corporation objectionable to some of its customers, from competing
on equal terms with said customers, conspired and agreed among
themselves and with brokers and jobbers to refuse to sell sugar to the
said corporation at the usual prices to jobbers, held that such action,
under the circumstances set forth, constituted an unfair method of
competition. (Western Sugar Refinery et al., 2 F. T. C. 151.)

"EVIDENCE HELD INSUFFICIENT TO SUS-
TAIN FINDING OF FEDERAL TRADE COM-

MISSION that sugar refiners entered into a
conspiracy to refuse to sell to a particular
wholesale grocery company on the same
terms and at the same price charged com-
petitors of such company, in violation of

Federal Trade Commission Act, para-
graph 5 (Comp. St., par. 8836e), pro-
hibiting unfair methods of competition
in interstate commerce." (Syllabus.)
(Western Sugar Refg. Co. v. Federal Trade
Commission, 275 Fed. 725.)

IV. TO MAINTAIN PRICES AND ALLOCATE BUSINESS.

11. By printers.-Where a number of concerns engaged in the
printing of railway tariffs, schedules, and other printed matter
entered into and carried out a combination, conspiracy, understand-
ing, or pool to keep and maintain fixed prices for such printing, and
for the purpose of allocating to each member certain contracts for
printing, and so manipulated the bidding that the respective members
secured the busines allocated to them, held that such a combination
constituted an unfair method of competition. (Blakely Printing
Co. et al., 1 F. T. C. 277.)