Document: 341 U.S. 593 71 S.Ct. 971 95 L.Ed. 1199 TIMKEN ROLLER BEARING CO.v.UNITED STATES. No. 352. Argued April 24, 1951. Decided June 4, Messrs. Luther Day, Cleveland, Ohio, John G. Ketterer, Canton, for appellant. Mr. W. Perry Epes, Alexandria, Va., appellee. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The United States brought this civil action to prevent and restrain violations Sherman Act1 by appellant, Timken Roller Bearing Co., an Ohio corporation. complaint charged that in violation §§ 3 Act,2 combined, conspired acted with British Timken, Ltd. (British Timken), Societe Anonyme Francaise (French Timken) interstate foreign commerce eliminating competition manufacture sale antifriction bearings markets world. After a trial more than month District Court made detailed findings fact which may be summarized as follows: 2 As early 1909 appellant Timken's predecessor had comprehensive agreements providing territorial division world bearings. These arrangements were somewhat modified extended 1920, 1924 1925. Again 1927 substantially renewed connection transaction one Dewar, English businessman, cooperated purchasing all stock Timken. Later some was sold public result now holds about 30% outstanding shares while Dewar owns 24%.3 In 1928 organized French since date have together owned company. Beginning year, continuously kept operative "business agreements" regulating three companies use corporations trademark "Timken."4 Under these contracting parties (1) allocated trade territories among themselves; (2) fixed prices on products territory others; (3) protect each other's eliminate outside competition; (4) participated cartels restrict imports to, exports from, States. On findings, concluded violated Act charged, entered decree designed bar future violations. 83 F.Supp. 284. case is before us appellant's direct appeal under 15 U.S.C. § 29, U.S.C.A. 29. 4 Although has indiscriminately challenged Court's judgment over 200 separate assignments error, real grounds relied reversal are only few number.5 first place, contends most material without evidential support, they 'ignore or fail properly evaluate' evidence supporting position, it error court refuse make additional findings. For part, shotgun approach actually dispute proper inferences drawn from record;6 effect, invitation try de novo. This must decline such just does when Government makes same request. v. Yellow Cab 338 338, 70 177, 94 150. present case, judge after patient hearing carefully analyzed prepared obvious care.7 Appellant's lengthy brief failed establish there making any crucial, even important, ultimate subsidiary finding. Since we cannot say 'clearly erroneous,' accept them. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., 52(a), 28 5 Appellant next restraints so clearly revealed can justified 'reasonable,' therefore not Act, because 'ancillary' allegedly 'legal main transactions,' namely, 'joint venture' between exercise right license 'Timken.' 6 We contention. That merely incidental otherwise legitimate is, least, doubtful. found dominant purpose restrictive into avoid either themselves others. Regardless this, however, argument rejected. Our prior decisions plainly aggregation those existing illegal Act. Kiefer-Stewart Co. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, 340 211, 213, 259, 261; Socony-Vacuum Oil 310 150, 223—224 note 59, 60 811, 844—845, 84 1129; National Lead D.C., 63 513, affirmed 332 319, 67 1634, 91 2077; American Tobacco, 221 106, 180—184, 31 632, 648—650, 55 663; Associated Press States, 326 1, 15, 65 1416, 1422, 89 2013. See also Aluminum America, Cir., 148 F.2d 416, 439—445. common ownership control liberate them impact antitrust laws. E.g., supra at page 215, 262. Nor do find support reason authority proposition legally persons suppress others labeling project venture.' Perhaps every agreement combination could labeled. 7 reasonable steps taken implement valid licensing system, if assume owner 'Timken' areas corporations. premise contracts refuted finding 'trade mark provisions (in agreements) secondary central allocating territories.' Furthermore, affords protection name, went far beyond name provided whether carrying not. A used device violation. Indeed, Trade Mark 1946 itself penalizes 'to violate laws States.'8 8 reject suggestion should enforced what done view current conditions. regard seems tariffs, quota restrictions like export import no longer expected practical matter; successfully sell its American-made goods abroad; way profit business England, France other countries through manufacturing there. position ignores against based assumption, reflect policy, commodities both possible desirable. Those wholly inconsistent left free participate international cartels, sacrificed order foster dollars investment factories abroad. Acceptance would dead letter insofar prohibits conspiracies restraint trade. If drastic change statute, Congress it. 9 Finally, attacks being too broad scope. enjoins continuation repetition conduct illegal. correct. Ethyl Gasoline Corp. 309 436, 461, 618, 627, 852. It contains certain restraining within court's discretion 'relief, effective, go narrow limits proven violation.' Gypsum 76, 90, 160, 170. vigorous objection, portions relating divestiture stockholdings financial interests 10 DOUGLAS, MINTON I believe ordered divestiture. views point obtained part plan promote restraints. severed, intercompany relationships will provide future, past, temptation means engage prohibited conduct. considerations alone enough order. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 131, 152—153, 68 915, 926—927, 92 1260; 363, 1655, 2077. But well. overturned unless abused discretion. Absent divestiture, difficult see where parts forbidding add much already prohibits.9 And obviously effective further end inter-corporate relationship been core conspiracy. reasons, ordering divestiture.10 11 Nevertheless, majority Court, reasons set forth opinions filed Therefore, becomes necessary strike VIII, IVB, phrase 'or B' IVC. modified, affirmed. 12 ordered. 13 Judgment 14 BURTON CLARK took consideration decision case. REED, whom CHIEF JUSTICE joins, concurring. 16 me objection approves Company seem strange conspiracy marketing corporation another large major interest, but conclusion open wide doors home fields. My disagreement suggested requirement divest interest required paragraph VIII out below.1 follow. 17 There specific statutory authorizing courts employ harsh remedy proceedings Fines imprisonment follow criminal convictions, property decrees, punishment, assure enforcement trade.2 18 restore punish who trade, indiscriminately, type methods, less harsh, available. judicial lines exemplified our recent rulings pages 348—353, 1647—1650, 2077, approved properties belonging conspirators denied While here call confiscation, think unnecessary.3 19 grew effort patent monopoly. difficulties cultivating market manufactured creation enjoy distribution restrictions, quotas exchange, might expected. propensity toward evidenced Crescent 20 What corporation, field tapered roller bearings, producing 80 percent output. 1947 gross sales $77,000,000. distinctive bearing, competing adoption industry produces 25% facts tending show formal partition territory, lawful. 21 circumstances, was, course, occasion lower splitting up consolidated entity. Cf. Standard New Jersey 502, 619; Tobacco 663. create numerous smaller individual bearing field. company normal growth development. Its relations close furthur value development business. Such destroyed away evil. 22 An injunction prohibit objectionable contracts. Violation threaten officers contempt. Goldman, 277 229, 48 486, 72 862, Hill ex rel. Weiner, 300 105, 57 347, 81 537. paucity cases dealing contempt injunctions think, indication how decrees obeyed. stronger sanction alone. Once possession showing violation, obtain quick summary punishment violator. Furthermore remains docket 'enforcement compliance' 'punishment violations.' provision leave power enforce fails. Prompt full compliance anticipated. 23 hesitant, always, interfere scope decree.4 However, appropriate indicate my disapproval suggest direction leading eliminated decree. remand give opportunity reconsideration changes death Dewar. 24 entered. 25 FRANKFURTER, dissenting. 26 force reasoning fortifies doubts felt Government's persuades associate myself, substance, dissenting expressed JACKSON. Even 'cartel' talismanic word, displace rule breaches Law determined. 'division territory' self-operating category dispense analysis consequences paper geographic territory. 27 Banana Fruit 213 29 511, 53 826, presented different us, circumstances alter incidence setting domestic clear unreasonable Of formulate economic policy commerce. conditions controlling relevant here. When matter cold legal, financial, governmental policies deny opportunities exportation country importation it, afford enterprise fall ban fair construction comparable regarding come condemnation. JACKSON, 30 doubt regarded industrial concern organize subsidiaries, limited serving particular area. so, preclude reaching many industries. fundamental issue concerns severely technical application concept admitted had, own corporate organization, departments operate plants Great Britain, well State, 'that You two entities conspiracy.'1 Thus, although single producer, compete itself, abroad home, determine allot effect here, conspire itself. counsel answered affirmatively question Chief Justice: 'Your theory you difference?'2 applies well-established doctrine persons. applied subsidiaries 'separate persons,' arrangement parent legal unlawful places weight labels. 32 apply strict doctrine, still method did sit down competitors divide times, places, powerful rivals. effectively meeting their markets, joined creating best reachable exploit markets. doing allotted none enter parent. governments handicap owning plants, entering contracts, engaging directly, waging areas. 33 philosophy Government, adopted solely venture subsidiaries. forbidden thus deal utilize territories, 'parent maintaining entities,'3 consequence unlawful. barriers, empire preferences, various forms parochialism free, virtually foreclose kinds. thing unit; recognize consist units means. free. Stat. 209, 1—4, 1—4. sections declare combinations states nations. died pending. infra. agreements, governed until 1965, dated November 28, 1938. originally attacked below 206 including 69 alleged errors fact, conclusions law, 62 refusal new (Later abandoned assignments.) unduly repetitious, frivolous, excessive number obscures actual relies reversal. pointed motion dismiss appeal, justify dismissal situations. Local 167 291 293, 296, 54 396, 397, 78 804; Phillips Colby Construction Seymour, 646, 648, 341. take action, opposing sufficiently spelled objections raises illustrated following portion 'Summary Argument' appears brief: 'The upon district demonstrating intentional reconcilable joint adventure suppressing contrary erroneous.' Brief Appellant, pp. 78—79. claims law comply Rule 52(a) Federal Rules Civil Procedure. meets requirements Rule. 427, 439, 33(b)(7), 1051, 1115(b)(7), 1115(b)(7). penalty 'trade-marks misused. * cartel agreements.' Cong.Rec. 7872. unwise light rejected contention Were litigation, entitled purchase Dewar's (which 54% corporation); 50% (which, exercised, 100% company). moved reopen record admit changed caused motion. hold ruling 'VIII. A. Within years judgment, defendant shall holdings interests, indirect, year approval 'B. Defendant hereby enjoined restrained, from: '1. Acquiring, directly indirectly, (by acquisition assets securities, option, otherwise), over, subsidiary, successor assign thereof; '2. Exercising influence production, successor, assign, agent, representative, distributor '3. Causing, knowingly permitting officer, director, employee serve thereof.' Amusement 323 173, 189, 254, 262, 160; 166 (Third), 933, 85 881, 895, sub nom. Loew's, 339 974, 1031; 333, 392 (Aluminum Limited) 418—419. Hartford - Empire 386, 413, 373, 387, 322, et seq. 89, Argument government reported L.W. 3291 supra.

Category: 7