brands to ensure consistency”). However, because private label goods offer a strong value benefit, if a national customer wishes to purchase such goods and have them available across all of its locations, it can do so most efficiently through a broadliner with national geographic scope. See Hr’g Tr. 600 (George Holm of PFG stating that one reason national customers prefer to contract with Sysco or USF is that “[w]here they have a preference for a private brand, [] it is the same product [across] their system”). ’ c. Defendants’ Operations Both Sysco arid USF operate dedicated sales groups from their national headquarters that are responsible for negotiating and managing contracts with customers who use multiple distribution centers. See Grinnell, 384 U.S. at 572-74, 86 S.Ct. 1698 (<HOLDING>). Sysco refers to these customers as “corporate
holding that centralized station security services operated on a national level is a relevant product market holding that whether a product is within comment k should be determined on a case by case basis where it is shown that the product is unavoidably unsafe and product of exceptional social need holding that proof of relevant market is essential under  2 holding that changes in the baseball card market between 1965 and 1980 foreclosed any argument that a definition of the relevant market by the federal trade commission could preclude relitigation of the market definition issue holding that a contract for an exclusive agency to market a product contains an implied promise to use all reasonable efforts to market the product