Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
6Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Patrick Dang v. San Francisco 49ers et al

Patrick Dang v. San Francisco 49ers et al

Ratings: (0)|Views: 7,804|Likes:
Published by Paul Anderson
Antitrust Class Action
Antitrust Class Action

More info:

Published by: Paul Anderson on Oct 25, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/06/2013

pdf

text

original

 
%
2
349
10
11
12
13
14
15
1617
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
252627
28
Roy
A.
Katriel
(SBN
265463)
THE
KATRIELLAWFIRM
12707High
Bluff
Drive,Suite200SanDiego,California92130
Telephone:(858)350-4342Facsimile:(858)430-3719
e-mail:
rak@katriellaw.com
RalphB.Kalfayan(SBN133464)
KRAUSEKALFAYAN
BENINK
&
SLAVENS,
LLP
550WestCStreet,Suite530SanDiego,California92101Telephone:(619)232-0331
Facsimile:(619)232-4019
e-mail:ralph@kkbs-law.com
Attorneys
forPlaintiffPatrickDang
pu
rrn
I
2f:2
C-T
.?4
A
II:
23
UNITED
STATESDISTRICTCOURT
NORTHERN
DISTRICT
OF
CALIFORNI
PATRICK
DANG,ON
BEHALF
OF
HIMSELF
AND
)
Vivil
Ac
ALLOTHERSSIMILARLYSITUATED,
"1
Plaintiff,
CLASSACTIONCOMPLAINT
v.
SANFRANCISCOFORTYNINERS,LTD.;THE
OAKLANDRAIDERS,L.P.;CHARGERSFOOTBALL
COMPANY,
LLC;
NEW
ORLEANS
LOUISANA
SAINTS,LLC;FOOTBALLNORTHWESTLLC;THEDETROITLIONS,INC.;HOUSTONNFLHOLDINGS,L.P.;MINNESOTAVIKINGSFOOTBALLCLUB,LLC
LTD;JACKSONVILLEJAGUARS,LTD;TENNESSEE
FOOTBALL,L.P.;PITTSBURGHSTEELERSSPORTS,
INC.;
BUFFALO
BILLS,
INC.;
INDIANAPOLIS
COLTS,INC.;PDBSPORTS,LTD.D/B/ADENVERBRONCOS;NEWENGLANDPATRIOTS,L.P.;CINCINNATIBENGALS,INC.;THERAMSFOOTBALLCOMPANY,INC.;GREENBAYPACKERS,INC.;MIAMIDOLPHINSLTD.;NEW
YORK
JETS
LLC;
KANSASCITYCHIEFSFOOTBALL)
CLUB,
INC.;DALLASCOWBOYSFOOTBALLCLUB
)
Jury
Trial
Demanded
Dang
v.SanFranciscoFortyNiners,Lidel.ai.
ClassActionComplain!
 
3456
7
8
910111213
14
15161718
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LTD.;
TAMPABAYAREA
NFL
FOOTBALL,
INC.;
CLEVELAND
BROWNSFOOTBALLL
COMPANY
LLC;
NEW
YORKFOOTBALLGIANTS,
INC.;
PHILADELPHIAEAGLESFOOTBALLCLUB.
INC.;
RICHARDSONSPORTSLIMITEDPARTNERSHIP;PRO-FOOTBALL,
INC.;
FIVESMITHS,
INC.;
B&B
HOLDINGS,
INC.;
NATIONALFOOTBALLLEAGUEPROPERTIES,
INC.;
NATIONALFOOTBALL
LEAGUE;
REEBOK
INTERNATIONAL,
LTD.,
Defendants.
NATURE
OF
THEACTION
1.PlaintiffPatrickDang
("Plaintiff')
bringsthisactionon
behalf
of
himself
andallother
SimilarlysituatedindirectpurchaserswithintheState
of
California
of
apparelbearingthelogo,
trademarks,emblemsorotherintellectualproperty(collectively"theIntellectualProperty")
of
NationalFootballLeague
("NFL")
teams,toseekmonetary,injunctive,anddeclarator}'reliefagainstthenameddefendantsfortheirviolations
of
theCaliforniaCartwrightActandUnfairCompetitionLaw.PlaintiffalsobringsCountIV
of
thisactionon
behalf
of
anationwideclass
of
suchindirectpurchaserstoseekequitable,declaratory,andinjunctivereliefpursuanttoSection16
of
thefederalClaytonAct.Asdetailedbelow,thenameddefendantshaveenteredintoaseries
of
agreementsinrestraint
of
traderegardinglicensinganddistribution
of
apparelbearingtheIntellectualProperty
of
theindividualNFLteams.Althougheach
of
theNFL
team's
IntellectualPropertyisownedbytheirrespectiveteams,whicheachwouldbefreetolicenseaccordingtoeachindividual
team's
solejudgment,theowners
of
each
of
theindividualteamshaveagreedtolicensetheirIntellectualPropertyonlytoDefendantNFLProperties,Inc.,aseparateDelawarecorporationformedbytheIndividualNFLteamsandtheNFL.
NFLProperties,Inc.,inturn,withthevoteandagreement
of
each
of
thecompetingindividualNFLteamsandtheNFL,grantedanexclusivelicense
of
morethantenyears'durationtoDefendantReebok
International,Ltd.,("Reebok")tousetheIntellectualProperty
of
any
andallindividualNFLlearnsin
apparel,therebyensuringthatforthemorethantenyears'orsoduration
of
thelicensingagreement
Dangv.SanFranciscoForty
Miners,
Lid.
elal.
ClassActionComplaint
 
12345
67
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1718
19
20
21
2223
24
25
262728
providedbyNFLProperties,Inc.,anyapparelbearingtheIntellectualProperty
of
anyNFLteamcouldonlybemanufacturedbyReebok,totheexclusionofallotherapparelmanufacturers.Asaresult,competitioninthemarketforapparelbearingtheIntellectualProperty
of
anyNFLteamhasbeenthwarted,andconsumers
of
theseproducts,likePlaintiffandtheputativeclassmembers,havebeen
overchargedfortheirpurchases.ButfortheagreemententeredintobetweentheseparateindividualNFLteamstostopcompetingbetweenthemselvesforthelicensingoftheirrespectiveIntellectual
Property,andtheseparateexclusiveagreemententeredintobetweenNFLProperties,Inc.andReebok,therewouldbecompetitionamongtheseveralindividualNFLteamsforthelicensingoftheteam's
IntellectualPropertyforuseinapparel,andtherealsowouldbecompetitionamongrivalapparel
manufacturerstomanufactureandsellNFL-teambrandedapparel.Thus,butfortheseagreements,the
saleofsuchapparelwouldbesubjecttonormalmarketcompetitive
forces.
Indeed,thisisthesituation
thatprevailedpriortotheinstitution
of
theagreementsatissue.2.Plaintiffdoesnotbringthisactiononacleanslate.Rather,inaseparateantitrust
lawsuitfiledandcurrentlypendingbeforetheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheNorthernDistrictof
Illinois,styledas
American
Needle,
Inc.
v.
NewOrleansLouisianaSaints,
No.04-7806(N.D.
111.),
AmericanNeedle,Inc.,amanufacturer
of
headwear,whopriortotheagreementbetweentheNFLteamsthatisatissueinthiscasehadbeengrantedalicensetomanufactureheadwearbearingtheIntellectualProperty
of
variousNFLteams,broughtafederalantitrustlawsuitagainsttheindividual
NFL
teams,
NFLProperties,Inc.,the
NFL,
andReebok,claimingthat,asaresultoftheagreementsin
restraint
of
tradeamongsttheindividualNFLteamsandamongstNFLPropertiesInc.andReebok,AmericanNeedlewasexcludedfromthemarketforthemanufacturing
of
NFL-teambrandedheadwear.AlthoughthedistrictcourtinitiallyenteredsummaryjudgmentagainstAmericanNeedle,findingthattheseparateNFLteamsformedasingleentityforantitrustpurposesthatcouldnotconspireinviolation
of
theShermanAct,andthatdecisionwasaffirmedbytheSeventhCircuit,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtsubsequentlyreversedthatjudgment,andheldthattheindividualNFLteamswere,indeed,
separateeconomicactorsforpurposesoftheantitrustlawsthatcouldconspireunlawfullyinviolation
of
thefederalantitrustlaws.
SeeAmericanNeedle,Inc.v.NationalFootballLeague,
130S.Ct.2201
(2010).Afterreversal,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtremandedthecasebacktothetrialcourtwhere
Dang
v.
SanFranciscoFortyNiners.Ltd.et.al.
ClassActionComplaint

Activity (6)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Mike Swift liked this
Zan Rosin liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->