Cases on Trade Regulation: Selected from Decisions of English and American Courts, Del 1West Publishing Company, 1923 - 1078 sider |
Innhold
| 1 | |
| 34 | |
| 47 | |
| 79 | |
| 166 | |
| 186 | |
| 210 | |
| 259 | |
| 537 | |
| 581 | |
| 634 | |
| 667 | |
| 703 | |
| 789 | |
| 832 | |
| 888 | |
| 307 | |
| 354 | |
| 434 | |
| 449 | |
| 459 | |
| 479 | |
| 487 | |
| 509 | |
| 911 | |
| 983 | |
| 1015 | |
| 1047 | |
| 1054 | |
| 1063 | |
Vanlige uttrykk og setninger
advertising agents agreed agreement alleged appellees association averred baking powder bill breach carried charge Circuit Court Clayton Act combination commerce common law Company competition competitors complainant complainant's consideration contract corporation Court of Appeals court of equity covenant cream of tartar customers damages dealers declaration decree defendant defendant's demurrer Diamond Match Company effect employés enforce engaged entered equity evidence fact Federal Trade Commission fendant held illegal injunction injury intended interest jobbers judge judgment jury Justice lease limited Lord machine maliciously manufacture matter ment monopoly opinion parties patent person petitioner plaintiff present profit protection public policy purchase purpose question reason respondent restraint of trade restriction retail rule sell Sherman Act Singer Mfg sold statute Supreme Court tiff tion trade-mark unfair United unlawful unreasonable valid violation void Walter Baker wholesale words
Populære avsnitt
Side 629 - ... on the condition, agreement or understanding that the lessee or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies or other commodities of a competitor or competitors of the lessor or seller, where the effect of such lease, sale, or contract for sale or such condition, agreement or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce.
Side 50 - ... whether the restraint is such only as to afford a fair protection to the interests of the party in favor of whom it is given, and not so large as to interfere with the interests of the public. Whatever restraint is larger than the necessary protection of the party, can be of no benefit to either; it can only be oppressive ; and, if oppressive, it is in the eye of the law unreasonable. Whatever is injurious to the interests of the public, is void on the ground of public policy.
Side 391 - ... or receptacles intended to be used upon or in connection with the sale of merchandise of substantially the same descriptive properties...
Side 567 - An action against a trade union, whether of workmen or masters, or against any members or officials thereof on behalf of themselves and all other members of the trade union in respect of any tortious act alleged to have been committed by or on behalf of the trade union, shall not be entertained by any court.
Side 685 - If upon such hearing the Commission shall be of the opinion that the method of competition or the act or practice in question is prohibited by this Act, it shall make a report in writing in which it shall state its findings as to the facts and shall issue and cause to be served on such person, partnership, or corporation an order requiring such person, partnership, or corporation to cease and desist from using such method of competition or such act or practice.
Side 834 - The clear tendency of such an agreement is to establish a monopoly, and to destroy competition in trade, and for that reason, on grounds of public policy, the courts will not aid in its enforcement. It is no answer to say that competition in the salt trade was not in fact destroyed, or that the price of the commodity was not unreasonably advanced. Courts will not stop to inquire as to the degree of injury inflicted upon the public ; it is enough to know that the. inevitable tendency of such contracts...
Side 420 - In the ordinary case of parties competing under the same mark in the same market, it is correct to say that prior appropriation settles the question. But where two parties independently are employing the same mark upon goods of the same class, but in separate markets wholly remote the one from the other, the question of prior appropriation is legally insignificant, unless at least it appear that the second adopter has selected the mark with some design inimical to the interests of the first user,...
Side 383 - Strong, speaking for the court, that " the office of a trademark is to point out distinctively the origin or ownership of the article to which it is affixed ; or, in other words, to give notice who was the producer.
Side 126 - ... per Dieu, if the plaintiff were here, he should go to prison till he paid a fine to the king.
Side 55 - We agree In the general principle adopted by the court, that where the restraint of a party from carrying on a trade is larger and wider than the protection of the party with whom the contract Is made can possibly require, such restraint must be considered as unreasonable in law, and the contract which would enforce it must be therefore void.