holding that to prove an antitrust violation under the rule of reason the plaintiff must show defendants' conduct actually adversely affected competition
Summary of this case from Robert's Hawaii School Bus v. LaupahoehoeNo. 78-848.
January 15, 1979, OCTOBER TERM, 1978.
C.A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 580 F. 2d 44.
holding that to prove an antitrust violation under the rule of reason the plaintiff must show defendants' conduct actually adversely affected competition
Summary of this case from Robert's Hawaii School Bus v. Laupahoehoerejecting Pick-Barth Co. v. Mitchell Woodbury Corp., 57 F.2d 96 (1st Cir. 1932) and its progeny, which held such conduct to be per se violation
Summary of this case from Union City Barge Line, Inc. v. Union Carbiderejecting a per se rule approach of Sauter
Summary of this case from Advanced Power Systems v. Hi-Tech SystemsFull title:R. G. BARRY CORP. v. MUSHROOM MAKERS, INC
Court:U.S.
Date published: Jan 15, 1979
We begin with the oft-repeated observation that the essential question in any case of alleged trademark…
Springs Mills, Inc. v. Ultracashmere House, Ltd.The central inquiry in all cases of alleged trademark infringement and unfair competition is the likelihood…