Supreme Court rules against exclusive hair product sales
March 9, 1998
Web posted at: 2:33 p.m. EST (1933 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a decision that may be good news for
consumers and bad news for manufacturers, the Supreme Court
Monday ruled against a California manufacturer of hair care
products which sought to sell its wares in the United States
exclusively through hair salons.
The court ruled that once L'anza Research International also
sold its products overseas, it lost the exclusivity of its
copyright and the right to control its distribution.
Labels on L'anza products are copyrighted under federal law.
In the United States, L'anza's products are sold only through
authorized distributors such as beauty salons and barber
shops.
But L'anza also sells its products to overseas distributors
at a discount of 35 to 40 percent, because they do not
benefit from the company's U.S. advertising. The company does
not authorize international distributors to import the
products into the United States.
But the decision says an importer -- in this case, Quality
King Distributors -- could legally bring the hair care
products back into the United States and sell them to
discount marketers which could retail the products, often at
lower prices than in the salons.
Although the case involved a small California manufacturer,
it was closely watched by manufacturing and retailing giants.
Recording, publishing, movie and computer software
manufacturers, all of whom claim copyright protection, had
taken L'anza's side.
Supporting Quality King's side were Wal-Mart, Costco, Target
and other retailers who want access to such goods at the more
favorable prices which, the retailers claim, they pass on to
their customers.
Court makes other decisions
In other action, the court:
- Set aside a Baltimore man's conviction and three-year
prison sentence for a 1993 beating death, ruling that he was
denied a fair trial because a co-defendant's confession was
read to the jury.
- Rejected a former Nevada university professor's arguments
that the University of Nevada, Reno, had discriminated
against her and violated a federal anti-bias law, when it
hired a black sociology professor before her.
- Refused to revive a program in Dade County, Florida, that
boosted the awarding of construction contracts to black-owned
companies. The county had argued that discrimination in its
local construction industry was severe enough to justify a
remedy.
- Told a federal appeals court to reexamine a
sexual-harassment lawsuit against Belleville, Illinois, by
twin brothers who say they were tormented during a summer job
for the city. A federal judge threw out the lawsuit, but the
7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had reinstated part of it,
ruling that the alleged conduct could amount to illegal
sexual harassment.
- Let Syracuse, New York, keep sponsoring the annual display
of a Christmas Nativity scene in a public park. The display
was challenged as a government endorsement of religion.
- Agreed to decide whether police need a search warrant
before peering through a gap in window blinds to detect
possibly illegal behavior. The court will consider
reinstating the Minnesota convictions of two men arrested on
cocaine charges, after a police officer saw them through an
apartment window packaging a powdery substance.
Correspondent Charles Bierbauer contributed to this report.