Court Opinion

ID: 9422741
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:04:14.528597+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:38.837572
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Harlan,
concurring in the result.*
In one respect I would give the States more leeway in unfair competition “copying” cases than the Court’s opinions would allow. If copying is found, other than by an inference arising from the mere act of copying, to have been undertaken with the dominant purpose and effect of palming off one’s goods as those of another or of confusing customers as to the source of such goods, I see no reason why the State may not impose reasonable restrictions on the future “copying” itself. Vindication of the paramount federal interest at stake does not require a State to tolerate such specifically oriented predatory business practices. Apart from this, I am in accord with the opinions of the Court, and concur in both judgments since neither case presents the point on which I find myself in disagreement.

[This opinion applies also to No. 108, Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., ante, p. 225.]