Opinion ID: 700613
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Test for Proving Adverse Effect

Text: 10 The district court in this case concluded that KMB failed to meet its initial burden of showing an actual adverse effect on competition as a whole in the relevant market. In order to fulfill this requirement, the plaintiff must show more than just that he was harmed by defendants' conduct. See Oreck Corp. v. Whirlpool Corp., 579 F.2d 126, 133-34 (2d Cir.) (That another customer of the defendant convinced the defendant to cease dealings with plaintiff did not suffice to show anti-competitive effect.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 946, 99 S.Ct. 340, 58 L.Ed.2d 338 (1978); Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477, 488, 97 S.Ct. 690, 697, 50 L.Ed.2d 701 (1977) (The antitrust laws ... were enacted for 'the protection of competition not competitors.'  (citation omitted)). Therefore, that KMB may have lost a potentially lucrative contract with Walker is not sufficient to state a cognizable antitrust claim. 11 To prevail on a Sec. 1 claim, a plaintiff must also show more than just an adverse effect on competition among different sellers of the same product (intrabrand competition), in this case Walker exhaust equipment. See Borger v. Yamaha Int'l Corp., 625 F.2d 390, 397 (2d Cir.1980) (reversible error to instruct the jury to find defendant liable solely on the basis of a purpose to restrict intrabrand competition, without any finding of either a purpose or effect related to interbrand competition). Restrictions on intrabrand competition can actually enhance market-wide competition by fostering vertical efficiency and maintaining the desired quality of a product. See Continental T.V., 433 U.S. at 54-55 & n. 23, 97 S.Ct. at 2559-60 & n. 23; Eiberger v. Sony Corp. of Am., 622 F.2d 1068, 1075-76 (2d Cir.1980). Because the focus of our inquiry is the relevant market as a whole, restriction of intrabrand competition must be balanced against any increases in interbrand competition. Eiberger, 622 F.2d at 1076; Copy-Data Sys., Inc. v. Toshiba Am., Inc., 663 F.2d 405, 411 (2d Cir.1981). The overarching standard is whether defendants' actions diminish overall competition, and hence consumer welfare. Graphic Prods. Distribs. v. Itek Corp., 717 F.2d 1560, 1571, 1573 (11th Cir.1983).