Gunter Harz Sports v. UTSA case brief summary
511 F.Supp. 1103 (1981)
CASE FACTS
Defendant, a not-for-profit sanctioning organization, honored a temporary ban on the use of a new type of tennis racket and subsequently adopted a rule defining tennis rackets that was promulgated by an international body of which defendant was a member. Plaintiff corporation alleged that defendant's actions constituted a conspiracy with others to restrain competition. Plaintiff filed suit, seeking injunctive relief and treble damages, pursuant to the Clayton Act,15 U.S.C.S. §§ 15, 26, for defendant's alleged violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1.
DISCUSSION
After trial to the court without a jury, the court ruled that defendant had not violated the Sherman Act. The rule of reasonableness, rather than the per se doctrine, governed the case. Defendant's actions were rationally related to legitimate goals and no more extensive than necessary. Adequate procedural safeguards were provided. Further, any effect defendant's actions had on plaintiff's ability to compete was incidental.
CONCLUSION
The court ruled that defendant had not violated § 1 of the Sherman Act because the concerted action at issue was rationally related to legitimate goals and no more extensive than necessary.
Suggested Study Aid For Sports Law
511 F.Supp. 1103 (1981)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff's action alleging a violation
of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1, and seeking permanent
injunctive relief and treble damages pursuant to the Clayton Act, 15
U.S.C.S. §§ 15, 26, was tried to the court without a jury.CASE FACTS
Defendant, a not-for-profit sanctioning organization, honored a temporary ban on the use of a new type of tennis racket and subsequently adopted a rule defining tennis rackets that was promulgated by an international body of which defendant was a member. Plaintiff corporation alleged that defendant's actions constituted a conspiracy with others to restrain competition. Plaintiff filed suit, seeking injunctive relief and treble damages, pursuant to the Clayton Act,15 U.S.C.S. §§ 15, 26, for defendant's alleged violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1.
DISCUSSION
After trial to the court without a jury, the court ruled that defendant had not violated the Sherman Act. The rule of reasonableness, rather than the per se doctrine, governed the case. Defendant's actions were rationally related to legitimate goals and no more extensive than necessary. Adequate procedural safeguards were provided. Further, any effect defendant's actions had on plaintiff's ability to compete was incidental.
CONCLUSION
The court ruled that defendant had not violated § 1 of the Sherman Act because the concerted action at issue was rationally related to legitimate goals and no more extensive than necessary.
Suggested Study Aid For Sports Law
No comments:
Post a Comment