United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 2019-05-10
15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: 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; claim:
Uncertainty
opinion: the IR text is capped at 60000 chars; the cut falls in Part V (EU antitrust counterclaim, forum non conveniens). Part III, the Sherman Act counterclaim (@27859..40612), is complete. The ruling striking the "inequitable restraint of trade" affirmative defense lies beyond the cap.
Element injury: other: SBG is a reseller of Maui Jim product, not a rival manufacturer; the court's competitor-benefits-from-high-prices reasoning rests on SBG's own characterization, not on an analysis of the market level.
Element restraint.rule-of-reason: other: no explicit choice of the rule of reason appears in the text; the block sits on restraint.rule-of-reason because the ruling is the relevant-market requirement of that mode.
Misfit
None recorded
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 11
Elements 7–11 of 11
| Case | Statute of limitations (4-year civil under 15 U.S.C. § 15b; 5-year criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 3282) | Law-of-the-case doctrine in consolidated/MDL antitrust proceedings | Criminal mens rea: knowing participation in the conspiracy or intent to restrain trade | Ancillary restraints doctrine (restraint subordinate and collateral to a legitimate productive integration) | Horizontal cartel / hub-and-spoke conspiracy operating through vertical or dual-distribution arrangements |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maui Jim, Inc. v. Smartbuy Guru Enters. — 386 F. Supp. 3d 926 (2019) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 2019 (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maui Jim, Inc. v. Smartbuy Guru Enters. — 386 F. Supp. 3d 926 (2019) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 2019 — not reached (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Concerted action ("contract, combination ... or conspiracy") between separate economic decisionmakers | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits party: SmartBuy Guru Enterprises and affiliates (unauthorized online discount reseller; defendants and counterclaimants - the § 1 claimant); Maui Jim, Inc. (sunglasses manufacturer; plaintiff and counterclaim defendant); subject: party=SmartBuy Guru Enterprises and affiliates (unauthorized online discount reseller; defendants and counterclaimants - the § 1 claimant); Maui Jim, Inc. (sunglasses manufacturer; plaintiff and counterclaim defendant) Maui Jim "does not take issue with the first element" on this motion (@28811); the court makes no ruling on it. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Maui Jim, Inc. v. Smartbuy Guru Enters. — 386 F. Supp. 3d 926 (2019) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 2019 — not · pleaded (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; party: SmartBuy Guru Enterprises and affiliates (unauthorized online discount reseller; defendants and counterclaimants - the § 1 claimant); Maui Jim, Inc. (sunglasses manufacturer; plaintiff and counterclaim defendant); theory: Count III counterclaim: Maui Jim's contracts with authorized distributors set minimum retail prices, restrict resale, and cut off retailers that supply SBG; subject: party=SmartBuy Guru Enterprises and affiliates (unauthorized online discount reseller; defendants and counterclaimants - the § 1 claimant); Maui Jim, Inc. (sunglasses manufacturer; plaintiff and counterclaim defendant); theory=Count III counterclaim: Maui Jim's contracts with authorized distributors set minimum retail prices, restrict resale, and cut off retailers that supply SBG The court holds the claimant to its own pleading label ("direct competitor") and treats the supply-cut-off theory as inconsistent with it and unsupported by authority (waived as undeveloped). | self-described direct competitor complaining of the rival's artificially high resale prices and of losing its supply | "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.' "Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_386.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/386/0926-01; Unicode character offsets [30122:30424] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a632803aa5361679adfc6a9af0138464dd4fdb0508bedabc55ff7554e2ed4536.SBG squarely characterizes itself as a "direct competitor of Maui Jim."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_386.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/386/0926-01; Unicode character offsets [30829:30900] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a632803aa5361679adfc6a9af0138464dd4fdb0508bedabc55ff7554e2ed4536.SBG nevertheless alleges it was harmed "because Maui Jim has unlawfully restricted and seeks to eliminate [SBG's] supply of Maui Jim sunglasses."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_386.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/386/0926-01; Unicode character offsets [31681:31826] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a632803aa5361679adfc6a9af0138464dd4fdb0508bedabc55ff7554e2ed4536.Maui Jim has allegedly threatened to terminate and has actually terminated retailers that have sold authentic goods to SBG.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_386.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/386/0926-01; Unicode character offsets [5681:5804] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a632803aa5361679adfc6a9af0138464dd4fdb0508bedabc55ff7554e2ed4536.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."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_386.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/386/0926-01; Unicode character offsets [31106:31310] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a632803aa5361679adfc6a9af0138464dd4fdb0508bedabc55ff7554e2ed4536. |
| Maui Jim, Inc. v. Smartbuy Guru Enters. — 386 F. Supp. 3d 926 (2019) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 2019 — not · pleaded (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Presumptive Rule of Reason burden-shifting analysis (antitrust market + anticompetitive effect vs procompetitive justification) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; party: SmartBuy Guru Enterprises and affiliates (unauthorized online discount reseller; defendants and counterclaimants - the § 1 claimant); Maui Jim, Inc. (sunglasses manufacturer; plaintiff and counterclaim defendant); theory: Count III counterclaim: Maui Jim's contracts with authorized distributors set minimum retail prices, restrict resale, and cut off retailers that supply SBG; subject: party=SmartBuy Guru Enterprises and affiliates (unauthorized online discount reseller; defendants and counterclaimants - the § 1 claimant); Maui Jim, Inc. (sunglasses manufacturer; plaintiff and counterclaim defendant); theory=Count III counterclaim: Maui Jim's contracts with authorized distributors set minimum retail prices, restrict resale, and cut off retailers that supply SBG The opinion does not name the mode of analysis; it requires a relevant market as part of the second § 1 element for these vertical resale restraints. | single-brand market (one manufacturer's sunglasses) pleaded by a retailer that itself sells 180 competing brands | "When a complaint limits the relevant market to a 'single brand, franchise, institution, or comparable entity that competes with potential substitutes,' a court should dismiss the complaint unless the complaint contains sufficient factual allegations that make it plausible there is no substitute."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_386.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/386/0926-01; Unicode character offsets [34130:34428] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a632803aa5361679adfc6a9af0138464dd4fdb0508bedabc55ff7554e2ed4536.SBG identifies the alleged relevant antitrust market as the "Maui Jim sunglasses market, specifically Maui Jim sunglasses that are marketed and sold throughout the United States either online or through retail stores."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_386.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/386/0926-01; Unicode character offsets [33101:33319] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a632803aa5361679adfc6a9af0138464dd4fdb0508bedabc55ff7554e2ed4536.SBG's only other allegation that Maui Jim sunglasses constitute a market unto themselves states, "Maui Jim's products are differentiated by virtue of their labeling and design."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_386.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/386/0926-01; Unicode character offsets [38976:39153] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a632803aa5361679adfc6a9af0138464dd4fdb0508bedabc55ff7554e2ed4536.SBG's minimal allegations say nothing regarding cross-elasticities of supply or demand.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_386.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/386/0926-01; Unicode character offsets [36028:36115] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a632803aa5361679adfc6a9af0138464dd4fdb0508bedabc55ff7554e2ed4536.The asserted single-brand market in Maui Jim sunglasses is all the more implausible in light of SBG's allegation that it sells "products from more than 180 of the world's best-selling designer brands at attractive prices."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_386.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/386/0926-01; Unicode character offsets [38000:38222] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a632803aa5361679adfc6a9af0138464dd4fdb0508bedabc55ff7554e2ed4536.SBG's failure to plead a plausible relevant market renders dismissal appropriate.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_386.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/386/0926-01; Unicode character offsets [38472:38553] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a632803aa5361679adfc6a9af0138464dd4fdb0508bedabc55ff7554e2ed4536. |