antitrust concerns. See Nurse Midwifery Assocs. v. Hibbett, 918 F.2d 605, 611 (6th Cir.1990) (recognizing in antitrust context, the “traditional rule that a principal cannot conspire with one of its agents”), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 952, 112 S.Ct. 406, 116 L.Ed.2d 355 (1991); Siegel Transfer, Inc. v. Carrier Express, Inc. 54 F.3d 1125 (3d Cir.1995) (reasoning that “in order for the concept of a conspiracy between a principal and an agent to apply in the antitrust context, the exception to the general rule should arise only where an agent acts to further his own economic interest in a marketplace actor which benefits from the alleged restraint, and causes his principal to take the anticompetitive actions about which the plaintiff complains”); see also ISO II, 203 F.3d at 1324, 1327-29 (<HOLDING>). Nor have plaintiffs presented any evidence to
holding that xeroxs policy of prohibiting its majorityowned european affiliate from selling parts was within scope of intellectual property grant holding that unauthorized use of faa supplemental type certificate was more than simple copying of intellectual property holding issues within scope of administrative hearing are within the reviewing courts purview recognizing that immunizing trademark infringement claims would limit laws pertaining to intellectual property holding that manufacturer of hvac equipment acted unilaterally where it prohibited independentlyowned and companyowned distributors of its parts from selling to independent repair companies