A federal court in Davenport, Iowa, has denied a motion by Michelin North America for a preliminary injunction against Bridgestone/Firestone in an ongoing dispute over retread marketing.
Michelin is suing Bridgestone/Firestone and Bandag, saying they tried to block Michelin's entry into the market for truck tire retread services.
Bridgestone/Firestone's position is that any alleged injuries suffered by Michelin are "a result of normal competition for increased market share, not injuries caused by any violation of federal laws governing competition."
"This ruling is a major step toward confirming our position that Michelin's claims are without merit," said Christine Karbowiak, spokeswoman for Bridgestone/Firestone.
The judge noted in his ruling that at hearings held in April, no distributors or customers spoke in support of Michelin's position. The customers who did testify had rejected Michelin's retreading system on its merits.
Michelin initially filed suit against Bandag in November 1999, contending that Bandag violated federal antitrust laws with its exclusive franchise agreements that limit dealer and end user choice in retread products. The suit was in response to one filed by Bandag two months earlier, claiming that the tire maker tried to drive the retreader out of business by misappropriating trade secrets, spreading false rumors about Bandag, and engaging in predatory pricing.
Michelin added Bridgestone/Firestone as a defendant earlier this year, claiming an unlawful agreement between BFS and Bandag to join forces and take action to delay or block Michelin from competing in the retreading market.
Michelin is suing Bridgestone/Firestone and Bandag, saying they tried to block Michelin's entry into the market for truck tire retread services.
Bridgestone/Firestone's position is that any alleged injuries suffered by Michelin are "a result of normal competition for increased market share, not injuries caused by any violation of federal laws governing competition."
"This ruling is a major step toward confirming our position that Michelin's claims are without merit," said Christine Karbowiak, spokeswoman for Bridgestone/Firestone.
The judge noted in his ruling that at hearings held in April, no distributors or customers spoke in support of Michelin's position. The customers who did testify had rejected Michelin's retreading system on its merits.
Michelin initially filed suit against Bandag in November 1999, contending that Bandag violated federal antitrust laws with its exclusive franchise agreements that limit dealer and end user choice in retread products. The suit was in response to one filed by Bandag two months earlier, claiming that the tire maker tried to drive the retreader out of business by misappropriating trade secrets, spreading false rumors about Bandag, and engaging in predatory pricing.
Michelin added Bridgestone/Firestone as a defendant earlier this year, claiming an unlawful agreement between BFS and Bandag to join forces and take action to delay or block Michelin from competing in the retreading market.
media brand
0 Comments
See all comments