15 U.S.C. § 3502
Price fixing agreements, horizontal restraints of trade, or group boycotts
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to legalize the enforcement of provisions described in section 3501 of this title in trademark licensing contracts or agreements described in that section by means of price fixing agreements, horizontal restraints of trade, or group boycotts, if such agreements, restraints, or boycotts would otherwise be unlawful.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1987–2025 · leading case: Pennsylvania ex rel. Zimmerman v. Pepsico, Inc., 836 F.2d 173 (3rd Cir. 1988).
Pennsylvania ex rel. Zimmerman v. Pepsico, Inc., 836 F.2d 173 (3rd Cir. 1988). “15 U.S.C. § 3502 . The genesis of the Act is in the Supreme Court’s rulings on vertical restraints, and in the effect of those rulings on standard soft drink industry distribution practices.”
Sun Dun, Inc. of Washington v. Coca-Cola Co., 740 F. Supp. 381 (D. Maryland 1990). “Also, because, for purposes of this motion, it must be assumed *390 that the Soft Drink Interbrand Competition Act does not apply, it is unnecessary to rule on plaintiffs contention in this Count that 15 U.S.C. § 3502 (1982) deprives defendants of the Act’s protection.”
Pennsylvania Ex Rel. Zimmerman v. PepsiCo, Inc., 658 F. Supp. 816 (M.D. Penn. 1987). “15 U.S.C. § 3502 (brackets added). As detailed in defendants’ brief in support of their motions, this legislation was passed after years of litigation before the Federal Trade Commission which ultimately culminated in an FTC decision that the syrup manufacturers’ territorial…”
Ex parte BTC Wholesale Distributors, Inc. Arhaan, LLC Birmingham Wholesale, LLC City Wholesale, Inc. & The H.T. Hackney Co. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Buffalo Rock Co., Inc. v. PepsiCo, Inc.) (Jefferson Circuit Court: CV-19-900217). (Ala. 2023). “That section of the Soft Drink Act states, in relevant part: "Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to legalize the enforcement of provisions described in [§] 3501 of this title in trademark licensing contracts … by means of price fixing agreements, horizontal restraints of…”
Tuma v. Hawthorne Race Course, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2025). “Tuma argues that HISA qualifies as a law enforcement agency because it is authorized to ensure compliance with the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. §3502 , et seq. (Dckt. #49 at 13).”
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.