A plaintiff alleging a competition-based claim must identify the relevant market with reference to the rule of reasonable interchangeability. Here, plaintiff pleaded nothing but conclusory statements without factual support for its claim that its products are competitive with those of the corporate defendant. The only allegation in the complaint concerning competition is that both plaintiff and the corporate defendant market their coffeemakers to commercial customers. There are no allegations that the corporate defendant's products are sold to the same relevant market, for a similar purpose, let alone to the same customers. The complaint further fails to allege that plaintiff lost any customers to the corporate defendants. As to damages, vague, boilerplate allegations are insufficient to sustain the cause of action.
Case: Bodum USA, Inc. v. Perez, NY Slip Op 02507 (1st Dep't March 30, 2017)
Here is the decision.
Monday's issue: Civil contempt.
