Bling!: Gorgeous Gowns and Dazzling Dresses :
Object Name:
Dress
Object ID:
I94.11.3.1
Date:
circa 1940
Description:
Black crepe material dress with square neckline trimmed with heavy white and black sequin design; cloth label sewn in by waist zipper seam, white with blue machine-embroidery: (some unreadable because folded in half and sewing in the seam) ___ original design_/Registered/BY A MEMBER OF/___SHION ORIGINATORS GUILD

The Fashion Originators' Guild of America was an organization created by the U.S. fashion industry in 1933 to try to prevent the copying of clothing designs. The Guild provided a registration scheme for manufacturers, who would then collectively boycott retailers if they were found to be selling copied items. It fell foul of the Federal Trade Commission, which issued a cease-and-desist order based on the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Guild appealed the FTC's decision in the U.S. Supreme Court in Fashion Originators' Guild of America v. FTC. In 1941, the Supreme Court upheld the FTC's ruling. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashion_Originators%27_Guild_of_America)

FASHION ORIGINATORS' GUILD OF AMERICA V. FTC, 312 U. S. 457 (1941)
U.S. Supreme Court (http://supreme.justia.com/us/312/457/ )
Fashion Originators' Guild of America v. FTC, 312 U.S. 457 (1941)
Fashion Originators' Guild of America v. Federal Trade Commission
No. 537
Argued February 10, 1941
Decided March 3, 1941
312 U.S. 457
Syllabus:
A combination of manufacturers of women's garments and manufacturers of textiles used in their making, who 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.
Held:
1. That the conclusion of the Commission was based on adequate and unchallenged findings, and was correct. P. 312 U. S. 463.
2. Where the purpose and practice of a combination run counter to the public policy declared in the Sherman and Clayton Acts, the Federal Trade Commission has the power to suppress it as an unfair method of competition. P. 312 U. S. 463.
3. A practice short of a complete monopoly but which tends to create a monopoly and to deprive the public of the advantages from free competition in interstate trade, offends the policy of the Sherman Act. P. 312 U. S. 466.
4. A combination may be contrary to the policy of the Sherman and Clayton Acts though it does not tend to fix or regulate prices, parcel out or limit production, or bring about a deterioration in quality. P. 312 U. S. 466. Page 312 U. S. 458
It was the object of the Federal Trade Commission Act to reach in their incipiency combinations which could lead to these and other trade restraints and practice deemed undesirable.
5. Since the purpose and object of this combination, its potential power, its tendency to monopoly, the coercion it could and did practice upon a rival method of competition, all brought it within the prohibition declared by the Sherman and Clayton Acts, it was not erroneous to exclude evidence offered to prove that the practices were reasonable and necessary for the protection of manufacturer, laborer, retailer and consumer against the evils growing from the pirating of original designs. P. 312 U. S. 467.
6. Whether or not systematic copying of the dress designs by trade competitors is in itself tortious is a question of state law; but even if tortious under the laws of all the States, that circumstance would not justify a combination to suppress it by regulating and restraining interstate commerce in violation of federal law. P. 312 U. S. 468. 114 F.2d 80, affirmed.
Certiorari, 311 U.S. 641, to review the affirmance by the court below of a "cease and desist" order of the Federal Trade Commission. Page 312 U. S. 460
Click to Enlarge
Image 
Image