Trademark: Compulsory Licensing as a Remedy for Violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act
In re Borden, Inc., FTC Dkt. No. 8978 (Aug. 19, 1976).
The interface of trademark and antitrust law has for some time generated controversy among various segments of the legal profession. The heart of the debate has centered on the need to harmonize the preservation of economic competition, which is the goal of the antitrust laws,' with the entrepreneur's interest in maintaining the undivided use of the mechanism by which his product or service is identified-his trademark. The achievement of harmony between these ends depends, therefore, upon a certain characterization of the trademark; that is, the particular social and economic functions which are attributed to trademarks must be examined in the light of the proscriptions of the antitrust laws. An appropriate focus for such a discourse is a case recently before the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), In re Borden, Inc. In-that case the administrative law judge, before whom the complaint was initially heard, ordered the respondent, Borden, to license its ReaLemon trademark to all others who wished to compete in the marketing and sale of reconstituted lemon juice, the trademark product. This remedy was thought necessary in order to disperse the monopoly power which Borden had been found to possess in that market, in violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
Berry, Richard C. and Muto, Anthony J.
"Trademark: Compulsory Licensing as a Remedy for Violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act,"
University of Dayton Law Review: Vol. 2:
2, Article 8.
Available at: https://ecommons.udayton.edu/udlr/vol2/iss2/8