NFLP ______________ an exclusive license to ____________ Reebok International Ltd. to produce and sell trademarked headwear for all 32 teams. When ___________’s license was not renewed, it filed this ___________ alleging that the agreements between respondents violated the Sherman Act, §1 of which makes “[e]very contract, combination . . . or, conspiracy, in restraint of trade” illegal. Respondents answered that they were incapable of ___________ within§1’s meaning because the NFL and its teams are, in antitrust law ___________, a single entity with respect to the conduct challenged. The District Court granted respondents ___________ judgment, and the Seventh Circuit ________________.
respondent - petitioner – granted – restraint - action - jargon - affirmed - conspiring - entity - summary
Held: The alleged ____________ related to licensing of _______________ property constitutes _____________ action that is not ________________ beyond §1’s coverage. Pp. 4–20.
(a) The meaning of “contract, combination . . . , or, conspiracy” in §1 of the Sherman Act is ______________ by the Act’s “ ‘basic distinction between concerted and independent action.’ ”
concerted - informed - conduct - intellectual – categorically
“[c]oncerted activity ______________ is fraught with _______________ risk” _____________ as it “_________________ the marketplace of independent centers of ____________________ that competition assumes and demands,”
insofar - anticompetitive - inherently - decisionmaking - deprives
…less risk of ______________ a firm’s necessary conduct and leaves courts to examine only _______________ agreements. An arrangement must therefore _____________ concerted action in order to be a “contract, combination . . . or, conspiracy” under §1. Pp. 4–6.
discrete - deterring - embody
In determining whether there is concerted action under §1, the Court has ___________ formalistic distinctions, such as whether the alleged conspirators are legally distinct ____________, in favor of a ______________consideration of how they actually operate. The Court has repeatedly found instances in which members of a legally single entity ______________§1 when the entity was controlled by a group of competitors and served, in essence, as a _____________ for ongoing concerted activity. See, e.g., United States v. Sealy, Inc., 388 U. S. 350, 352–356. Conversely, the Court has found that although the entities may be “separate” for purposes of incorporation or formal title, if they are controlled by a single center of ________________ and they control a single _______________ of economic power, an agreement between them does not constitute a “contract, combination . . . or, conspiracy.”
entities - conversely - eschewed - vehicle - aggregation - decisionmaking - functional - violated