of competition. It is not contested that Mr. Serfecz brings this action neither as a consumer nor as a competitor in the retail grocery market, but as a lessor of rental space to competitors in this market. Suppliers to direct market participants typically cannot seek recovery under the antitrust laws because their injuries are too secondary and indirect to be considered “antitrust injuries.” Southwest Suburban Bd. of Realtors, Inc. v. Beverly Area Planning Ass’n, 830 F.2d 1374, 1379 (7th Cir.1987); see also Stamatakis Indus, v. King, 965 F.2d 469, 471 (7th Cir.1992) (“[A] producer’s loss is no concern of the antitrust laws, which protect consumers from suppliers rather than suppliers from each other.”); Bodie-Rickett & Assocs. v. Mars, Inc., 957 F.2d 287, 290-91 (6th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). In Southwest Suburban, a trade association
holding that a plaintiff must show antitrust injury in order to bring an antitrust lawsuit holding that an antitrust injury is a necessary element of a  2 claim holding that plaintiff must show antitrust injury meaning injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and which flows from defendants unlawful acts holding that noncompetitors injury was an antitrust injury as it was inextricably intertwined with the injury the conspirators sought to inflict holding that injury to broker through loss of commission was not antitrust injury