Maui Jim, Inc. v. Smartbuy Guru Enters.

386 F. Supp. 3d 926 (2019) United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois 2019-05-10

civil trademark suit by manufacturer against unauthorized online reseller; reseller's § 1 counterclaim (Count III) attacks the manufacturer's distributor contracts; manufacturer's Rule 12(b)(6) motion granted with prejudice for want of antitrust injury and of a plausible relevant market (result: claimant-lost)

Facts

  1. 7 Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) not pleaded
    Maui Jim has allegedly threatened to terminate and has actually terminated retailers that have sold authentic goods to SBG.
  2. 7 Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) not pleaded
    "A competitor may not 'recover damages for any conspiracy ... to charge higher than competitive prices," because although "[s]uch conduct would indeed violate the Sherman Act," it cannot injure a claimant competitor because competitors " 'stand to gain from any conspiracy to raise the market price.' "
  3. 7 Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) not pleaded
    SBG squarely characterizes itself as a "direct competitor of Maui Jim."
  4. 7 Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) not pleaded
    SBG's antitrust claim therefore does not allege antitrust injury because, as a "direct competitor of Maui Jim," Maui Jim's alleged contracts resulted in "artificially high prices for Maui Jim sunglasses."
  5. 7 Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) not pleaded
    SBG nevertheless alleges it was harmed "because Maui Jim has unlawfully restricted and seeks to eliminate [SBG's] supply of Maui Jim sunglasses."