Court Opinion

ID: 9442247
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 18:41:12.290359+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:01.664158
License: Public Domain

SWAN, Circuit Judge.
I concur only because I feel constrained to follow this court’s decision in Elizabeth Arden, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 2 Cir., 156 F.2d 132, certiorari denied 331 U.S. 806, 67 S.Ct. 1189, 91 L.Ed. 1828. Were the question open I would give the statute, section 13(e), a more restrictive reading and would hold that the forbidden “discrimination” must not only favor an interstate purchaser but must harm an in*154terstate purchaser from the defendant. Cf. Federal Trade Commission v. Bunte Brothers, Inc., 312 U.S. 349, 355, 61 S.Ct. 580, 85 L.Ed. 881; Higgins v. Carr Bros. Co., 317 U.S. 572, 574, 63 S.Ct. 337, 87 L.Ed. 468.