Issue of the case

Issue of the case “A combination of manufacturers claimed that the designs of their products, though not protected by patent or copyright, were original and distinctive, sought to suppress competition by others who copied their designs and sold at generally lower prices. To this end, those in the combination systematically registered their designs and refused all sales to manufacturers and retailers of garments who dealt in the copies or would not agree not to sell them. To aid in effectuating the boycott, the combination employed "shoppers" to visit retailers' stores, established tribunals to determine whether garments were copies of designs registered, audited the books of its members, fined them for violations of its regulations, etc. In view of these things, and the power of the combination and its effect upon sales in interstate commerce, the Federal Trade Commission concluded that the practices of the combination constituted unfair methods of competition tending to monopoly and issued a "cease and desist" order.” <http://supreme.justia.com>. This case was brought to court because it conflicts with the principles of the Clayton Act sec. 14. Sale, etc., on agreement not to use goods of competitor the act states that “It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to lease or make a sale or contract for sale of goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities, whether patented or unpatented, for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, or fix a price charged there for, or discount from, or rebate upon, such price, on the condition, agreement, or understanding that the lessee or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities of a competitor or competitors of the less or seller, where the effect of such lease, sale, or contract for sale or such condition, agreement, or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce.”<http://globalcompetitionforum.org.>.There for they were wrong to aid in the boycotting of the products because the products weren’t counterfeits but knock offs who weren’t pretending to be something they weren’t they were just a generic version of the original at a lower price point, and by boycotting they were possibly eliminating potential competition therefore creating a monopoly.