in the Eastern Caribbean—and alleges that CCC and C&W engaged in intentional conduct that gave them “monopoly power” and injured consumers in this market. (¶¶ 12-14) According to CBS, CCC and C&W misrepresented to advertisers that they could different forms, and is too dependent upon context, for any court or commentator ever to have enumerated all the varieties. It is a fair inference from the case law, however, that the allegations made here — namely, that the defendants made fraudulent misrepresentations to advertisers and sham objections to a government licensing agency in order to protect their monopoly — bring the defendants’ conduct well within that concept. See, e.g., California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508, 92 S.Ct. 609, 30 L.Ed.2d 642 (1972) (<HOLDING>); Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food
holding that plaintiffs complaint failed to state a claim under section 1 of the sherman act holding that standing to raise a claim under  2a of robinsonpatman act is derived from section 4 of the clayton act holding that complaint alleging design defect likely to cause damage failed to state a claim holding that complaint alleging conspiracy to misuse state legal and regulatory processes in order to deprive competitors of meaningful access stated claim under clayton act holding that prisoners have a constitutional right to meaningful access to courts and examining the facility as a whole to determine whether such access was sufficient