Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1


Ratings: (0)|Views: 41|Likes:
Published by Eriq Gardner

More info:

Published by: Eriq Gardner on Apr 08, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved


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





AMERICAN NEEDLE, INC.,))Plaintiff,))No. 04-cv-7806)v.))Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman) NEW ORLEANS LOUISIANA SAINTS, et al.,))Defendants.)
Plaintiff American Needle was one of several companies licensed to make hats bearingthe logos of National Football League teams, but lost that license when the NFL’s licensingentity, NFL Properties, entered into an exclusive ten-year licensing agreement with one of American Needle’s competitors, Reebok. American Needle claims that the exclusive deal withReebok was a combination that restrained trade in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, and inits motion for summary judgment, contends that a violation may be found on the basis of anabbreviated review rather than a full rule of reason analysis. Defendants, who include the NFL,30 of the league’s 32 teams, NFL Properties, and Reebok, also seek summary judgment. Theycontend that American Needle has not made a sufficient showing of a relevant product market tosustain its Sherman Act claim, and that it cannot show any causal link between the exclusivelicensing arrangement and any alleged injury. For the reasons detailed below, the motions for summary judgment are denied.
Case: 1:04-cv-07806 Document #: 339 Filed: 04/07/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:<pageID>
The teams of the National Football League license much of their intellectual propertythrough a separate entity, NFL Properties. For more than 20 years, American Needle heldlicenses from NFL Properties to make and sell hats bearing the logos of NFL teams. Severalother companies held similar licenses at the same time. In 2000, the league decided to grantheadwear licenses on an exclusive basis, and accepted manufacturers’ bids for the licensingarrangement. Reebok was the successful bidder, and in 2001, the company executed anagreement with NFL properties for a ten-year exclusive license to make and sell NFL hats. American Needle was one of several unsuccessful bidders for the arrangement; its license for  NFL hats was not renewed when it expired in March 2001. American Needle then brought the present action, asserting that the exclusive arrangement with Reebok violated the ShermanAntitrust Act. Following Court of Appeals and Supreme Court review of prior motiondispositions, the claim remaining in this court is American Needle’s allegation that the exclusivearrangement unreasonably restrained trade.
 I. Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment 
Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits combinations that unreasonably restrain trade.
U.S. v. Brown University,
5 F.3d 658, 668 (3d Cir. 1993), citing
Standard Oil Co. v. United States,
221 U.S. 1, 58 (1911). Analysis of the reasonable nature of a challenged restraintgenerally requires a weighing of the circumstances surrounding the restraint to determine itseffect on competition.
Continental T.V. Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc.,
433 U.S. 36, 49-50 (1977). 2
Case: 1:04-cv-07806 Document #: 339 Filed: 04/07/14 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:<pageID>
However, a restraint may be determined to be a violation of the Sherman Act after anabbreviated, or “quick look” analysis if its anticompetitive effect is obvious.
California Dental  Association v. F.T.C.,
526 U.S. 756, 770 (1999). American Needle contends that a quick look analysis is appropriate here. In response, defendants contend that the exclusive license arrangement encouragedadditional licensee commitment and had numerous procompetitive effects, includingimprovements in product design, quality, distribution, and coordination of styles with other apparel items. These contentions are sufficiently supported by evidence and expert opinion to befacially plausible. The plausibility of the claims of procompetitive effect precludes abbreviatedreview of American Needle’s claim.
California Dental Association,
526 U.S. at 778. American Needle’s motion for summary judgment is accordingly denied.
 II. Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment - Market Definition
Defendants assert that they are entitled to summary judgment because American Needlehas failed to provide evidence of a proper product market that is sufficient to allow its claim toreach a jury. The court is not persuaded that such evidence is required here.“Since the purpose of the inquires into market definition and market power is todetermine whether an arrangement has the potential for genuine adverse effects on competition, proof of actual detrimental effects, such as a reduction of output, can obviate the need for aninquiry into market power, which is but a surrogate for detrimental effects.”
 FTC v. Indiana Federation of Dentists,
476 U.S. 447, 460-61 (1986) [internal citation and quotation marksomitted]. In the present case, American Needle has presented evidence that shortly following theexecution of the exclusive arrangement between Reebok and NFL Properties, wholesale prices of 3
Case: 1:04-cv-07806 Document #: 339 Filed: 04/07/14 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:<pageID>

You're Reading a Free Preview

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