FTC v. Klesner

FTC v. Klesner

Opinion

 [*22]   [**2]   [***142]  MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case is here on certiorari, for the second time. It was brought in the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia by the Federal Trade Commission under § 5 of the [****6]  Act of September 26, 1914, c. 311, 38 Stat. 717, 719, to enforce an order entered by it. The order directs Klesner, an interior decorator, who does business in Washington under the name of Hooper & Klesner, to "cease and desist from using the words 'Shade Shop' standing alone or in conjunction with other words as an identification of the business conducted by him, in any manner of advertisement, signs, stationery, telephone, or business directories, trade lists or otherwise." That court dismissed the suit on the ground that, unlike United States circuit courts of appeals, it lacked jurisdiction to enforce orders of the Federal Trade Commission. 6 F.2d 701. On the first certiorari, we reversed the decree and directed that the cause be remanded for further proceedings.  Federal Trade Commission v. Klesner, 274 U.S. 145. Then the case was reargued before the Court of Appeals, on the pleadings and a transcript of the record before the  [*23]  Commission; and was dismissed on the merits, with costs. 25 F.2d 524. This second writ of certiorari was thereupon granted. 278 U.S. 591. We are of opinion that the decree of [****7]  the Court of Appeals should be affirmed -- not on the merits, but upon the ground that the filing of the complaint before the Commission was not in the public interest.

The conduct which the Commission held to be an unfair method of competition practiced within the District had been persisted in by Klesner ever since December, 1915. The  [***143]  complaint before the Commission was filed on December 18, 1920. The order sought to be enforced was entered June 23, 1922. This suit was begun on May 13, 1924. The evidence before the Commission, which occupies 394 pages of the printed record in this Court, is conflicting only to a small extent. The findings of the Commission are in substance as follows:

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.