Summary

Portrait of Hugo Black Hugo Black Timken Roller Bearing Company v…

Nor do we find any support in reason or authority for the proposition that agreements between legally separate persons and companies to suppress competition among themselves and others can be justified by labeling the project a 'joint venture.' Perhaps every agreement and combination to restrain trade could be so labeled.
Nor can the restraints of trade be justified as reasonable steps taken to implement a valid trademark licensing system, even if we assume with appellant that it is the owner of the trademark 'Timken' in the trade areas allocated to the British and French corporations.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Hugo Black Hugo Black Timken Roller Bearing Company v…

A trademark cannot be legally used as a device for Sherman Act violation. Indeed, the Trade Mark Act of 1946 itself penalizes use of a mark 'to violate the antitrust laws of the United States.' [8]
We also reject the suggestion that the Sherman Act should not be enforced in this case because what appellant has done is reasonable in view of current foreign trade conditions. The argument in this regard seems to be that tariffs, quota restrictions and the like are now such that the export and import of antifriction bearings can no longer be expected as a practical matter
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature