Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST NEWS: Truck body maker’s conspiracy, monopoly claims arrive in Texas, (Jul 10, 2015)

By Greg Hammond, J.D.

Following dismissal of similar claims in Illinois on venue grounds, a Texas manufacturer of fiberglass utility bodies for trucks has filed suit in Texas, claiming that a competitor engaged in anticompetitive conduct by filing sham trade dress litigation claims against the manufacturer in order to suppress competition for the manufacture and sale of fiberglass utility bodies (FUBs) for trucks and to maintain its monopoly in the FUB market (Industrial Models, Inc. v. SNF, Inc., July 8, 2015).

Industrial Models, Inc. entered the market for FUBs for trucks in January 2012, to diversify its business. In February 2013, SNF, Inc. allegedly contacted Industrial, expressing interest in purchasing its truck body molds. After Industrial did not agree to sell, SNF purportedly filed suit against Industrial, alleging infringement of its trade dress rights, patent rights, and copyrights. However, SNF filed a notice of non-suit in August 2014. Industrial filed suit in the federal district court in Chicago in October 2014, alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, as well as tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. The court dismissed the claims, however, finding a lack of sufficient contacts to bring the cause of action in Illinois. Industrial has now filed suit in the federal district court in Dallas.

In Count I of the complaint, Industrial alleges that SNF, BrandFX Holdings, LLC, and BrandFX, LLC (collectively, BrandFX) unlawfully restrained trade in the market for FUBS, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, by failing to withdraw trade dress rights, patent rights, and copyrights claims it knew were baseless; causing stoppage and reduction in output by one or more competitors of the BrandFX business, including at least Industrial; substantially excluding Industrial from the U.S. market for FUBs; and imposing crippling costs on Industrial at a time when it was a new market entrant. Industrial further claims that but for BrandFX’s conduct, the U.S. market for FUBs would presently be and in recent years would have been characterized by greater product choice, greater price competition, greater competition with respect to quality and design, and lower prices than currently exist and have existed in the past.

In Counts II and III, Industrial claims that BrandFX’s conduct has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by monopolization and/or attempted monopolization of the product market for FUBs in the geographic market of the United States. BrandFX’s conduct, according to Industrial, constitutes a per se violation of Section 2.

Industrial also brought claims for declaratory judgment of non-infringement of purported BrandFX trade dress rights, patent rights, and copyrights (Counts IV-VI), and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage (Count VII).

The company seeks judgment that BrandFX violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act; damages and trebled damages; costs of suit, including reasonable attorney fees; declaratory judgment that Industrial has not infringed any SNF or BrandFX trade dress right, patent right, or copyright; permanent injunction enjoining BrandFX from asserting or threatening to assert against Industrial, any charge of trade dress, patent, or copyright infringement in connection with the molds at issue; a finding that this case is exceptional; and an entry of judgment that BrandFX tortiously interfered with Industrial’s prospective economic advantage.

The case is 3:15-cv-02261-K.

Attorneys: Thomas F. Harkins, Jr. (Whitaker Chalk Swindle & Schwartz PLLC) and Peter N. Jansson (Jansson Munger McKinley & Shape Ltd.) for Industrial Models, Inc.

Companies: Industrial Models, Inc.; SNF, Inc.; BrandFX Holdings, LLC; BrandFX, LLC

News: Antitrust