Citation network
United States Vs. Sealy, Inc.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 12, 1967
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
United States v. SealySearch
-
Inc. - 388 U.S. 350 (1967) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. SealySearch
-
Inc., 388 U.S. 350 (1967) United States v. SealySearch
-
White Motor Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
creature of the licensor, Sealy, or as the product of a horizontal arrangement among the licensees. White Motor Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
than form, there is little room for debate. These must be classified as horizontal restraints. Compare United States v. GeneralSearch
-
United States v. ParkeSearch
-
allocation. It is not the principal. Accordingly, this case is to be distinguished from White Motor Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
were not embraced within the condemnation of horizontal territorial limitations in Timken Roller Bearing Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
and so serious that the courts will not pause to assess them in light of the rule of reason. See, e.g., United States v. Socony-VacuumSearch
-
United States v. GeneralSearch
-
territorial restraints were mere incidents of a lawful program of trademark licensing. Cf. Timken Roller Bearing Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
including unlawful price-fixing and policing. Timken Roller Bearing Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
States, supra, 341 U.S. at 341 U. S. 598 . Compare United States v. GeneralSearch
-
Timken Roller Bearing Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
United States v. NewSearch
-
United States v. AmericanSearch
-
otherwise permitted by law, cannot be defended as ancillary to a trademark licensing scheme. Cf. also United States v. GeneralSearch
-
Cf. Northern Pacific R. Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN observed, concurring in the result in United States v. GeneralSearch
-
and tying arrangements, has been held to be a per se violation of the Sherman Act. Northern Pacific R. Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Page 388 U. S. 359 laws without regard to any asserted justification for them. See Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. NationalSearch
-
Timken Roller Bearing Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
would be competing among themselves, such restraints are immediately suspect. As the Court noted in White Motor Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. JerroldSearch
-
Chicago Board of Trade v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 238 . Indeed, the Court reaffirms these principles in the opinion which it announces today in United States v. ArnoldSearch
-
Sandura Co. v. FTCSearch
-
one (but only one) relevant factor in determining whether the restraint is an unreasonable one. Compare United States v. Penn-OlinSearch
-
Compare United States v. GeneralSearch
-
See United States v. SertaSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court United States v. SealySearch
-
United States v. Socony-VacuumSearch
-
Cf. Timken Roller Bearing Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
of the Sherman Act. Northern Pacific R. Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
See Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. ArnoldSearch
-
Compare United States v. Penn-OlinSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial