Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has gone to the dogs with a decision sorting out whether nonprofit breeder groups can sue each other over alleged Sherman and Lanham Act antitrust violations. A unanimous three-judge panel said that although the groups disagree over whether Jack Russell terriers should be evaluated as show dogs or working dogs, the groups are not competitors and therefore can’t accuse each other of unfair business practices. The Jack Russell terrier is named for Parson John Russell of England. A small but energetic dog bred for fox hunting, the Jack Russell is now a favorite among city dwellers. Besides being cute, Jack Russells are big business. But they’ve gotten the short end of the stick and couldn’t compete against other breeds because they weren’t legitimized as a distinct breed until recently. For years, the dogs were regulated only by the nonprofit Jack Russell Terrier Club of America. Recently, members of a local affiliate, the Jack Russell Terrier Network of Northern California, persuaded the American Kennel Club to register Jack Russells as a legitimate breed, which allows them to compete. But the national terrier club didn’t like that and shut out anyone who registered with the AKC, even going so far as to blacklist breeders in True Grit, a magazine devoted to the dogs. The national club believes that “an alternative all-breed kennel club standard and registry was not in the best interests of the dog. . . . [The group] believes that any kennel club standard would over time change the dog into a show breed, bred for form, not function,” according to the opinion. The local club sued, alleging an unfair business boycott. The case was tossed by Northern District Judge James Ware, and the local club appealed. But the 9th Circuit panel said the local club didn’t have a paw to stand on. It cannot accuse the national club of conspiracy when everyone shares the same goal � the promotion of Jack Russells � even if they go about reaching that goal differently. As for the false-advertising claim � filed as a result of the blacklisting � the panel, Judges Dorothy Nelson, Andrew Kleinfeld, and Ronald Gould, agreed with Ware that the litigants were barking up the wrong tree. Jeff Chorney is a reporter for The Recorder, an ALM newspaper published in San Francisco, where this article first appeared.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.