Anti-Monopoly, Inc. v. General Mills, Inc.
1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 16321, 684 F.2d 1326 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The enforcement of a trademark that has become generic, and is therefore invalid, can serve as the basis for an antitrust monopolization claim. A summary judgment dismissing such a claim must be reversed if it was premised on the now-overturned finding that the trademark was valid.
Facts:
- General Mills Fun Group, Inc. manufactured and sold a popular board game under the registered trademark 'Monopoly'.
- Anti-Monopoly, Inc. sought to produce and market a different game titled 'Anti-Monopoly'.
- General Mills took legal action to enforce its 'Monopoly' trademark rights against Anti-Monopoly, Inc. in the United States to prevent the use of a similar name.
- General Mills also initiated legal proceedings in various European countries against Anti-Monopoly, Inc. and its licensees to enforce its trademark rights in foreign commerce.
- In its foreign commercial dealings, General Mills also asserted claims related to expired patents and its trademark rights in the word 'monopoly'.
Procedural Posture:
- Anti-Monopoly, Inc. filed two separate antitrust lawsuits against General Mills in federal district court: a 'domestic case' and a 'foreign case'.
- In a related trademark infringement action between the same parties, the district court had twice ruled that General Mills' 'Monopoly' trademark was valid.
- Based on its finding of the trademark's validity, the district court granted summary judgment for General Mills in the domestic antitrust case.
- The district court also granted summary judgment for General Mills in the foreign antitrust case, partially on the same grounds of the trademark's validity.
- Anti-Monopoly, Inc. (as appellant) appealed both summary judgments to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where the cases were consolidated.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can an antitrust monopolization claim, which was dismissed on summary judgment because it was based on the enforcement of a purportedly valid trademark, proceed if an appellate court subsequently rules that the trademark is invalid?
Opinions:
Majority - Duniway, Circuit Judge
Yes, an antitrust claim dismissed on the basis of a valid trademark can proceed if that trademark is later invalidated. The court's reasoning is based on its own separate decision, issued the same day in a related case (Anti-Monopoly III), which held that the 'Monopoly' trademark had become generic and was therefore invalid. The district court had granted summary judgment to General Mills in the antitrust cases entirely on the premise that the trademark was valid and its enforcement could not, therefore, violate antitrust laws. Because that fundamental premise has been reversed, the summary judgments dismissing the antitrust claims cannot stand. The court affirmed the dismissal of one specific claim related to 'groundless' foreign litigation, noting that because General Mills had won those cases, they could not have been groundless. The remainder of the antitrust claims were remanded to the district court for further proceedings in light of the trademark's invalidity.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the intersection of intellectual property law and antitrust law, establishing that the wrongful enforcement of an invalid trademark is not shielded from antitrust scrutiny. The ruling demonstrates that while enforcing a valid IP right is generally permissible, using an invalid one to exclude competition can form the basis of an illegal monopolization claim. This precedent increases the risk for companies that continue to enforce trademarks that may have become generic, as losing trademark protection can expose them to significant antitrust liability for past enforcement actions.
