Queen City Pizza, Inc. v. Domino's Pizza, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that plaintiffs had failed to adequately allege a tied product market
• cautioning that “in most cases, proper market definition can be determined only after a factual inquiry into the commercial realities faced by consumers.”
• explaining that a proposed relevant market was too narrow because it did not include “all reasonably interchangeable products”
• explaining that “[i]nterchangeability 13 may be some degree of preference for the one over the other, either would work effectively”
• refusing to adopt the position that \contractual restraints render otherwise identical products non-interchangeable for purposes of relevant market definition\
• explaining that, unlike in Kodak, where the conduct challenged “was not authorized by contract terms disclosed at the time of the original transaction,” the franchise transaction at issue here “was subjected to competition at the pre-contract stage”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).