Court Opinion

ID: 9651752
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 16:34:32.350391+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:38.983342
License: Public Domain

SWAN, Circuit Judge
(concurring specially).
In my opinion paragraph (5) of the Commission’s order, which forbids the use of the words “Smithsonian Institution”' in respondent’s trade or corporate name, is unnecessarily drastic. Until recently this court would have regarded itself as-competent to modify an order which imposed a restraint broader than the necessities of the case required, as was done in Federal Trade Com. v. Royal Milling Co., 288 U.S. 212, 218, 53 S.Ct. 335, 77 L.Ed. 706, and Bear Mill Mfg. Co. v. Federal *443Trade Com., 2 Cir., 98 F.2d 67, 69. But in Herzfeld v. Federal Trade Commission, 140 F.2d 207, we held that later decisions of the Supreme Court had in effect overruled the doctrine of the Royal Milling case, and that the court is now forbidden to disturb that measure of relief which the Commission thinks necessary to protect against unfair methods of competition. Only because I feel constrained to follow the Herzfeld decision regardless of my personal views, am I willing to concur in affirming paragraph (5) of the order.