Also known as: unfair method of competition · unfair competition
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A statutory prohibition under the Federal Trade Commission Act that empowers the FTC to challenge business conduct violating the letter or spirit of the antitrust laws or constituting an incipient violation.
Ulysses Maritime sues a rival for federal copyright infringement over copied shipping logs and joins a state unfair competition claim arising from the same documents. The district court exercises pendent jurisdiction because the claims share a common nucleus of operative fact.
Umar Underwood, a late-night host, sues Here’s Johnny Portable Toilets for using his signature introduction phrase on portable toilets. The court finds the use constitutes unfair competition by appropriating Underwood’s identity for commercial benefit.
John W. Carson has hosted “The Tonight Show” on NBC five nights a week since 1962 and appears as an entertainer in night clubs and theaters around the country. From the time he began hosting the program, he has been introduced each night with the phrase “Here’s Johnny,” a method of introduction first used for him in 1957 when he hosted a daily television program for ABC. The phrase “Here’s Johnny” is generally associated with Carson by a substantial segment of the television viewing public. In 1967 Carson first authorized use of the phrase by an outside business venture, permitting it to be used by a chain of restaurants called “Here’s Johnny Restaurants.” In 1970 Johnny Carson Apparel, Inc. was formed to manufacture and market men’s clothing to retail stores. Carson, who serves as president and owns twenty percent of its stock, licensed the company to use his name and picture, which appear on virtually all of its products and promotional material. He also consented to use of the phrase “Here’s Johnny” on labels and in advertising. In 1977 Apparel granted a license to Marcy Laboratories to use the phrase as the name of a line of men’s toiletries. The phrase has never been registered by appellants as a trademark or service mark. Here’s Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc., a Michigan corporation engaged in renting and selling portable toilets, began operations in 1976. Its founder was aware at the time he formed the corporation that “Here’s Johnny” was the introductory slogan for Carson on “The Tonight Show.” He coupled the phrase with a second slogan, “The World’s Foremost Commodian,” to make a play on words. Shortly after appellee went into business, Carson and Apparel brought suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan alleging unfair competition, trademark infringement under federal and state law, and invasion of privacy and publicity rights, seeking damages and an injunction. After a bench trial the district court issued a memorandum opinion and order in 1980 that served as its findings of fact and conclusions of law and ordered dismissal of the complaint.
View caseUniversal Motors sues a radio station for airing a tape of its executives discussing pricing strategies obtained by an unknown interceptor. The station claims First Amendment protection, but the court weighs whether the broadcast involves unfair methods of competition.
In the fall of 1992 and spring of 1993 the Pennsylvania State Education Association engaged in collective-bargaining negotiations with the Wyoming Valley West School District board. Petitioner Anthony Kane was president of the local union. Petitioner Gloria Bartnicki served as the union's chief negotiator and a teacher in the district. On the evening of May 15, 1993, Bartnicki used a cellular telephone in her car to call Kane. During the conversation they discussed the status of the negotiations, the possibility of a strike, and the board's offer of a three-percent raise. Kane suggested that if the board did not increase its offer the union should reject it and go on strike. He made statements about blowing off front porches and doing work on some of the board members. Bartnicki responded that they would have to do some nasty things. An unidentified person intercepted and recorded the cellular telephone conversation using an electronic device. The unknown interceptor gave the tape to respondent Jack Yocum, president of a local taxpayers' organization that had been critical of the union's demands. Yocum in turn gave the tape to respondent Frederick W. Vopper, a radio talk show host operating in the area. On May 31, 1993, Vopper played the tape of the intercepted conversation on his public affairs talk show. He played the tape again on August 23, 1993, during a news broadcast on a local television station. The same day the Wilkes-Barre Times Leader published a transcript of a portion of the tape. Bartnicki and Kane filed suit against Vopper, Yocum, and other media defendants seeking damages under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act. After discovery the District Court granted the petitioners' motion for summary judgment as to liability. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseUtopia Pharmaceuticals challenges an agency order capping drug prices as beyond statutory authority. The court upholds the order, finding the controls address unfair methods of competition in the pharmaceutical market.
Congress enacted the Emergency Price Control Act on January 30, 1942, as a temporary wartime measure. Congress amended it by the Stabilization Act of October 2, 1942. The Act authorized the Price Administrator, after consultation with industry representatives, to issue regulations fixing maximum prices that in his judgment would be generally fair and equitable and would effectuate the Act's purposes of stabilizing prices and preventing inflation. On April 28, 1942, the Administrator issued the General Maximum Price Regulation effective May 11, 1942, setting maximum prices at the highest price charged by the seller during March 1942. On December 10, 1942, the Administrator issued Revised Maximum Price Regulation No. 169, establishing specific maximum prices for wholesale cuts of beef and veal. Petitioners Yakus and others operated wholesale meat businesses in Massachusetts. Between December 1942 and early 1943 they sold wholesale cuts of beef at prices exceeding the maximums prescribed by Revised Maximum Price Regulation No. 169. Federal grand juries in the District of Massachusetts returned indictments charging them with willful violations of sections 4(a) and 205(b) of the Act. When the indictments were returned, the sixty-day period for filing administrative protests against the regulation had already expired. At trial the petitioners offered evidence on the validity of the regulation. They contended that the prices it fixed were not generally fair and equitable and that enforcement would compel them to sell at a loss. The district court excluded the evidence as irrelevant. It refused to submit the validity issue to the jury and convicted the petitioners on verdicts of guilty. The Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the convictions. Petitioners in related cases were likewise convicted in the same district court for selling processed textile futures above maximum prices established by Maximum Price Regulation No. 188 and Supplementary Regulation No. 271. Those convictions were also affirmed on appeal. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in all cases because of the importance of the issues to administration of the Act.
View caseUnion Steel contests federal wage and hour rules applied to its factories. The court sustains the rules, holding that substandard labor conditions can amount to unfair methods of competition in interstate commerce.
The United States secured an indictment against appellee in the district court for southern Georgia. It charged him with violation of section 15(a)(1), (2) and (5) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The indictment alleged that appellee, in the State of Georgia, is engaged in acquiring raw materials which he manufactures into finished lumber with the intent, when manufactured, to ship it in interstate commerce to customers outside the State. He does in fact so ship a large part of the lumber so produced. There are counts charging the shipment in interstate commerce from Georgia to points outside the State of lumber in the production of which appellee employed workmen at less than the prescribed minimum wage or in excess of the prescribed maximum hours without payment of overtime. Other counts charge the employment by appellee of workmen in the production of lumber for interstate commerce at wages of less than 25 cents an hour or for more than the maximum hours per week without payment of the prescribed overtime wage. Still another count charges appellee with failure to keep records showing the hours worked each day and week by each of his employees as required by section 11(c) and the regulations of the administrator. Appellee demurred to the indictment. The district court sustained the demurrer and quashed the indictment. The case comes here on direct appeal under the statutes authorizing review when the judgment sustaining the demurrer is based upon the invalidity or construction of the statute upon which the indictment is founded. The case was argued on December 19 and 20, 1940 and decided on February 3, 1941, as amended February 17, 1941.
View caseNo. Section 5 reaches conduct that violates the spirit or policy of the antitrust laws or constitutes an incipient violation even without a formal agreement.
Yes. The Supreme Court has held that the FTC may define and proscribe an unfair competitive practice even if it does not infringe the letter or spirit of the antitrust laws.
The interests of third persons and the public may carry substantial weight. An injunction can end an illegal practice affecting multiple competitors or customers and provide broader relief than damages alone.
Yes. When both claims arise from the same set of facts, such as the same alleged appropriation of a work, the federal court may exercise pendent jurisdiction because the claims form part of the same case or controversy.
…among the workers of the several States; (2) burdens commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce; (3) constitutes an unfair method of competition in commerce; (4) leads to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce; and (5) interferes with the orderly and fair marketing of goods in…