Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—N.D. Ill.: Truck body manufacturer must ship conspiracy, monopolization claims elsewhere, (May 20, 2015)

By Greg Hammond, J.D.

Venue was improper in Illinois for allegations that a Texas manufacturer of composite truck bodies engaged in anticompetitive conduct by filing sham trade dress litigation against a competitor in order to suppress competition for the manufacture and sale of composite truck bodies and to maintain its monopoly in the composite truck body market. The federal district court in Chicago determined that the manufacturer was not an inhabitant of, was not found in, and did not transact business in Illinois (Industrial Models, Inc. v. SNF, Inc., May 18, 2015, Blakey, J.).

Industrial Models, Inc. entered the market for fiberglass utility bodies for trucks in January 2012, to diversify its business. In February 2013, SNF, Inc., doing business as Brand FX Body Co., contacted Industrial Models, expressing interest in purchasing its truck body molds. After Industrial Models did not agree to sell, Brand FX allegedly filed suit against Industrial Models, alleging infringement of its trade dress rights. However, Brand FX filed a notice of non-suit in August 2014. Industrial Models filed the instant suit in October 2014, alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, as well as tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. Brand FX moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for lack of venue.

The court first determined that Section 12 of the Clayton Act applies in this case because Industrial Models alleged an antitrust violation. Consequently, personal jurisdiction of Brand FX, a Texas corporation with substantial ties to the United States, exists in the federal district court in Illinois.

Nevertheless, the motion to dismiss was granted for lack of venue. First, the court found that Brand FX does not transact business in the Northern District of Illinois because it has no employees, offices, or presence in the Northern District and, to the extent it sells any product in Illinois, it does so through entities not under its control. Second, Brand FX does not reside in Illinois because neither the solicitation of business, nor the operation of a website that is equally accessible in Illinois as elsewhere is enough to confer jurisdiction without more, the court found. Lastly, the court concluded that none of the allegations arose from any business transaction accomplished through Brand FX’s website, its dealers, or through its Illinois manufacture.

Because there were no sufficient contacts to bring the cause of action in Illinois, the motion to dismiss was granted and Brand FX’s request to transfer the case to the Northern District of Texas was denied.

The case number is 1:14-cv-08340.

Attorneys: Peter N. Jansson (Jansson Shupe & Munger, Ltd.) for Industrial Models, Inc. John P. Collins (Collins & Collins) for SNF, Inc.

Companies: Industrial Models, Inc.; SNF, Inc.

Cases: Antitrust IllinoisNews