15 U.S.C. § 3501
Exclusive territorial licenses to manufacture, distribute, and sell trademarked soft drink products; ultimate resale to consumers; substantial and effective competition
Nothing contained in any antitrust law shall render unlawful the inclusion and enforcement in any trademark licensing contract or agreement, pursuant to which the licensee engages in the manufacture (including manufacture by a sublicensee, agent, or subcontractor), distribution, and sale of a trademarked soft drink product, of provisions granting the licensee the sole and exclusive right to manufacture, distribute, and sell such product in a defined geographic area or limiting the licensee, directly or indirectly, to the manufacture, distribution, and sale of such product only for ultimate resale to consumers within a defined geographic area: Provided, That such product is in substantial and effective competition with other products of the same general class in the relevant market or markets.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of Pittsburg, Inc. v. Pepsico, Inc., 431 F.3d 1241 (10th Cir. 2005).
Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of Pittsburg, Inc. v. Pepsico, Inc., 431 F.3d 1241 (10th Cir. 2005). “Deloach, testified before the House Subcommittee on Monopolies and Commercial Law on the Soft Drink Interbrand Competition Act of 1980(Act), 15 U.S.C. § 3501 , et. seq. Deloach claimed PepsiCo needed the Act’s passage to pro *1250 tect its right to issue bottlers EBAs and syrup…”
Pennsylvania ex rel. Zimmerman v. Pepsico, Inc., 836 F.2d 173 (3rd Cir. 1988). “15 U.S.C. § 3501 . The Act insures that “[njothing contained in any antitrust law” shall render enforcement of territorial restraints unlawful, except where it is alleged and proved that competition among soft drink brands —ie.”
Owens v. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co., 412 S.E.2d 636 (N.C. 1992). “15 U.S.C. § 3501 (1980). Section 3503 of the Act specifies that “the term ‘antitrust law’ means the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the Federal Trade Commission Act.”
Sun Dun, Inc. of Washington v. Coca-Cola Co., 740 F. Supp. 381 (D. Maryland 1990). “The Soft Drink Act To the extent that the combinations and conspiracies alleged attack vertical arrangements, 5 the complaint in this case must overcome the hurdle presented by the Soft Drink Interbrand Competition Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 3501 to 3503 (1982), in addition to meeting…”
Pepsi-Cola Metro. Bottling Co., Inc. v. Checkers, Inc., 754 F.2d 10 (1st Cir. 1985). “and Metropolitan were entitled to limit sales so as to maintain Pepsi’s system of exclusive territorial dealerships, their right to do so was bolstered by the Soft Drink Interbrand Competition Act, 15 U.S.C. § 3501 , which became effective July 9, 1980, less than three weeks…”
N. Bottling Co., Inc. v. PepsiCo, Inc., 5 F.4th 917 (8th Cir. 2021). “See 15 U.S.C. § 3501 et seq. In response to the Soft Drink Act, PepsiCo developed the “PepsiCo Transshipment Enforcement Program” (“TEP”), which created a process by which PepsiCo investigated and fined bottlers whose product had been transshipped.”
O'NEILL v. Coca-Cola Co., 669 F. Supp. 217 (N.D. Ill. 1987). “Instead, the conduct alleged by O’Neill is sanctioned as an exception to antitrust law by the Soft Drink Interbrand Competition Act of 1980 (the “Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 3501 et seq. The Act provides in pertinent part as follows: Nothing contained in any antitrust law shall render…”
State v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of the Sw., 697 S.W.2d 677 (Tex. App. 1985). “In 1980, Congress enacted the Soft Drink Interbrand Competition Act (Soft Drink Act), 15 USCA § 3501 (West 1982), "to clarify the circumstances under which territorial provisions in licenses to manufacture, distribute, and sell trademarked soft drink products are unlawful under…”
Brunson Commc'ns, Inc. v. Arbitron, Inc., 239 F. Supp. 2d 550 (E.D. Pa. 2002). “If the Commonwealth had succeeded in demonstrating any of these types of anticom-petitive conduct, the defendants may have lost the protection they otherwise would have had under the Soft Drink Interbrand Competition Act of 1980, 15 U.”
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Coca-Cola Co., 641 F. Supp. 1128 (D.D.C. 1986). “They were insulated from federal antitrust scrutiny by the Soft Drink Interbrand Competition Act, see 15 U.S.C. § 3501 et seq. The restrictions prohibit only distribution.”
Sun Dun, Inc. of Washington v. Coca-Cola Co., 770 F. Supp. 285 (D. Maryland 1991). “The Soft Drink Interbrand Competition Act, 15 U.S.C. § 3501 et seq. Turning first to the claims against the Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo (which will be referred to herein as the licensors), the Court noted in its earlier opinion that discovery might well bear out those…”
Pennsylvania Ex Rel. Zimmerman v. PepsiCo, Inc., 658 F. Supp. 816 (M.D. Penn. 1987). “The basis of the motions to dismiss is that the defendants’ arrangement is specifically protected by the Soft Drink Inter-brand Competition Act (the Act), 15 U.S.C. § 3501 . Conversely, plaintiff asserts that its claim is actually one for which the Act carves out an exception in…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.