Interphoto Corporation v. Minolta Corporation
| Decision Date | 16 October 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 42,Docket 33460.,42 |
| Citation | 417 F.2d 621 |
| Parties | INTERPHOTO CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MINOLTA CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Forbes D. Shaw, New York City (Whitman, Ransom & Coulson, New York City, Patrick H. Sullivan and Richard A. Lang, Jr., New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellant.
Sanford M. Litvack, New York City (Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine, New York City, Albert H. Hoddinott, Jr., and John H. Wilkinson, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.
Before FRIENDLY, SMITH and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges.
This action under § 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 26 was brought, in the District Court for the Southern District of New York, against a manufacturer of imported photographic equipment by a former distributor whose agreement it had terminated. The late Judge Herlands, in January 1969, issued a temporary injunction against the manufacturer's refusal to deal, 295 F.Supp. 711. Not contesting at this juncture the court's conclusion that various attempts on its part to control the prices at, the territories in, and the customers to which the distributor sold constituted per se violations of the antitrust laws, the manufacturer challenges the judge's finding that it terminated the distributorship because of plaintiff's failure to follow its directions, and his conclusions with respect to irreparable injury.
The former finding is one of fact and thus within the ambit of the "unless clearly erroneous" rule. F.R. Civ.P. 52(a). On this record we are a long way from having a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. U. S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. 525, 542, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948). With respect to irreparable injury, while the judge was not obliged to accept plaintiff's contention that it would be unable to calculate its damages since it would suffer not merely loss of profits with respect to Minolta's goods but loss of good will from the lack of a "full line," he was free to do so, especially in light of the relatively slight harm a temporary injunction would cause the defendant — a point rather strongly evidenced by its failure to seek the preference we commonly grant to appeals from the issuance or denial of a temporary injunction, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) (1), or to bring the action on for trial.
Defendant also complains of a supplementary order directing it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reborn Enterprises, Inc. v. Fine Child, Inc.
..."active coercion" can take many forms. In Interphoto Corp. v. Minolta Corp., 295 F.Supp. 711, 716, 718-19 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 417 F.2d 621 (2d Cir.1969), the court found the use of an elaborate surveillance system and threats of "drastic" action enough to establish an illegal coercive atmosp......
-
American Motor Inns, Inc. v. Holiday Inns, Inc.
...at 1097.84 471 F.2d 894 (5th Cir. 1973).85 See Interphoto Corp. v. Minolta Corp., 295 F.Supp. 711 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd per curiam, 417 F.2d 621 (2d Cir. 1969) (Territorial customer restrictions in distributorship agreement between Minolta, which sold its cameras both through its own distributi......
-
American Motor Inns, Inc. v. Holiday Inns, Inc.
...functional level as its distributors.13 In Interphoto Corp. v. Minolta Corp., 295 F.Supp. 711 (S.D.N.Y.1969), aff'd per curiam, 417 F.2d 621 (2d Cir. 1969), Minolta (importer/manufacturer) inserted into a distribution agreement with Interphoto (distributor) an enumeration of 13 states in wh......
-
Vandervelde v. Put and Call Brokers and Dealers Ass'n
...by supplier to monopolize trade in his product); Interphoto Corp. v. Minolta Corp., 295 F.Supp. 711, 721 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 417 F.2d 621 (2d Cir. 1969) (motion for preliminary injunction); Lyons v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 235 F.Supp. 526, 538-39 (S.D.N.Y. 1964) (McLean, The Discount Ru......
-
Harvard, Chicago, and Transaction Cost Economics in Antitrust Analysis
...Pitchford v. PEPI, Inc., 531 F.2d 92, 103–04 (3d Cir. 1976); InterphotoCorp. v. Minolta Corp., 295 F. Supp. 711, 721–23 (S.D.N.Y.), aff’d, 417 F.2d 621(2d Cir. 1969).87 Elecs. Commc’ns Corp. v. Toshiba Am. Consumer Prods., Inc., 129 F.3d240 (2d Cir. 1997); Mesirow v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., ......
-
Harvard, Chicago, and Transaction Cost Economics in Antitrust Analysis
...Pitchford v. PEPI, Inc., 531 F.2d 92, 103–04 (3d Cir. 1976); InterphotoCorp. v. Minolta Corp., 295 F. Supp. 711, 721–23 (S.D.N.Y.), aff’d, 417 F.2d 621(2d Cir. 1969).87 Elecs. Commc’ns Corp. v. Toshiba Am. Consumer Prods., Inc., 129 F.3d240 (2d Cir. 1997); Mesirow v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., ......
-
Sylvania, Vertical Restraints, and Dual Distribution
...restrict the areaofdistribution amount to ahorizontal combination in restraintoftrade.179295 F. Supp. 711 (S.D.N.Y.), a/I'd per curiam, 417 F.2d 621(2d Cir. 1969).180 295 F. Supp, at 718 66 The antitrust bulletin...[Schwinn] restates the established rule that, where verticalterritorial rest......