George Sutherland, International Shoe Company v. Federal Trade Commission…
“ Apart from the more general testimony that both companies sold extensively in the same states and in the same cities, the inference from this evidence seems irresistible that in these states, as was the case in others, [1] the competing products were not only offered through different systems of distribution to the same retailers, but were by them offered and sold to the ultimate consumers in their communities. ”
George Sutherland, International Shoe Company v. Federal Trade Commission…
“ The McElwain Company, a Massachusetts corporation with its principal office in Boston, also manufactured shoes and sold and distributed them in several states of the Union. Principally, it made and sold dress shoes for men and boys. The International made and sold a line of men's dress shoes of various styles, which, although comparable in price, and to some degree in quality, with the men's dress shoes produced by the McElwain Company, differed from them in important particulars. Such competition as there was between the two companies related alone to men's dress shoes. ”
George Sutherland, International Shoe Company v. Federal Trade Commission…
“ In addition to the circumstances already cited, the officers of the International testified categorically that there was in fact no substantial competition between the companies in respect of these shoes, but that at most competition was incidental and so imperceptible that it could not be located. The existence of competition is a fact disclosed by observation rather than by the processes of logic ”
