page_title: Fashion Originators' Guild of America v. FTC
section_title: Ruling by Second Circuit
hierarchical_section_title: Fashion Originators' Guild of America v. FTC / Ruling by Second Circuit
caption_attribution_description: English: Supreme Court Justice Hugo La Fayette Black
context_page_description: Fashion Originators' Guild of America v. FTC, 312 U.S. 457, is a 1941 decision of the United States Supreme Court sustaining an order of the Federal Trade Commission against a boycott agreement among manufacturers of "high-fashion" dresses. The purpose of the boycott was to suppress "style piracy". The FTC found the Fashion Guild in violation of § 5 of the FTC Act, because the challenged conduct was a per se violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act.
context_section_description: FOGA did not challenge the accuracy of the findings, "but on the contrary seeks to justify the combination." It argued that says that its actions "were necessary to protect the industry as a whole from 'demoralization' and the 'property' of its members from appropriation."
  The Second Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Learned Hand, held that any common-law property right that the FOGA members had in their creations was lost upon publication. To embody a design in a dress or a fabric, and offer the dress for general sale was such a "publication"; therefore, the FOGA members had no property right against the copying by the so–called style pirates. "The Guild has therefore no . . . excuse for preventing other dressmakers from copying." Accordingly, the court said, "we are therefore to judge the Guild as a combination seeking to exclude outsiders from a market to which they have as lawful access as it has itself." A boycott can be justifiable only if it is in self-defense against a crime, tort, or breach of contract. "But that excuse does not extend to a boycott of retailers who buy dresses copied from 'published' designs; if that is to be justified, the excuse must be found elsewhere." The court could find no other excuse, and it observed that the effect of the boycott by the FOGA members "puts into their hands collectively the power to control the supply and with it the price," to the detriment of consumers. The court perceived each dress design as the subject of a monopoly (i.e., relevant submarket), so that "for these reasons the combination was unlawful per se."
caption: Justice Hugo Black
exif: {"Image ImageWidth": "1219", "Image ImageLength": "1536", "Image BitsPerSample": "8", "Image Compression": "Uncompressed", "Image PhotometricInterpretation": "1", "Image Orientation": "Horizontal (normal)", "Image SamplesPerPixel": "1", "Image XResolution": "1200", "Image YResolution": "1200", "Image ResolutionUnit": "Pixels/Inch", "Image Software": "Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)", "Image DateTime": "2015:09:13 12:05:07", "Image Artist": "Library of Congress", "Image ExifOffset": "268", "Thumbnail Compression": "JPEG (old-style)", "Thumbnail XResolution": "72", "Thumbnail YResolution": "72", "Thumbnail ResolutionUnit": "Pixels/Inch", "Thumbnail JPEGInterchangeFormat": "406", "Thumbnail JPEGInterchangeFormatLength": "2922", "EXIF ColorSpace": "Uncalibrated", "EXIF ExifImageWidth": "1219", "EXIF ExifImageLength": "1536"}