Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BIGELOW-SANFORD CARPET CO. v. FTC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA


March 4, 1960

BIGELOW-SANFORD CARPET COMPANY, Inc., Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION and Earl W. Kinter, Robert T. Secrest, Sigurd Anderson, William C. Kern, and Edward T. Tait, Individually and as Members of the Federal Trade Commission, Defendants

The opinion of the court was delivered by: YOUNGDAHL

As in Courtaulds (Alabama), Inc. V. Kintner, D.C., 182 F.Supp. 207, plaintiff a textile manufacturer, has moved the Court to enjoin the defendants from enforcing their Rules and Regulations under the Textile Act, 15 U.S.C. ยงยง 70-70k. The Court has fully discussed its views in a memorandum in Courtaulds, which is attached and made a part of hereof.

In plaintiff's 'Application for order Establishing Generic Name for Manufactured Fiber' filed with the F.T.C. on December 11, 1959, plaintiff states at p.15:

 

'The chemical composition of the polynosic fibers is identical with that of all natural and manufactured cellulosic fibers. However, fundamental differences in structure exist between natural cellulosic fibers and the presently-know manufactured cellulosic fibers, defined as rayon,'

 The F.T.C.'s Notice Denying Application, dated February 8, 1960, stated:

 

'The application describes the candidate fiber as being reconstitu ed cellulose and states that its chemical composition is identical to that of natural and manufactured cellulosic fibers. Regenerated cellulosic fiber, being rayon, it therefore follows that polynisic fiber and rayon are of identical chemical composition or, in other words, contain the same fiber-forming substance.'

 On the record before it, the Court cannot say the plaintiff will probably succeed on the merits in a showing that its fiber on the merits in a showing that its fiber is not within the definition of rayon as it appears in Sec. 303.7d. Moreover, an injunction would be particularly inappropriate her in light of plaintiff's inadequate showing of irreparable injury. On oral argument, it appeared that while some sales are presently being made, the substantial amount of plaintiff's fiber will not be produce until its plant is completed which will not occur until the end of this year. And see discussion in Courtaulds.

 Counsel for the defendant is requested to submit findings of fact , conclusions of law and an order in conformity with this opinion.

 The motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.

19600304

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.