Court granted defendant's judgment as a matter of law on the issue of Lanham Act damages where plaintiff presented no evidence that any customer was misled or relied upon defendant's advertisements found false by the jury.

Rather than employ the hypothetical monopolist test analysis for determining product market under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's analysis using the actual market for refined sugar as the product market definition.

Although arbitral panel did not expressly address claims against one defendant in its award imposing joint and several liability against all defendants, that oversight did not rise to the level of significant error necessary to overturn an arbitration award where those theories of liability against the defendant were pled by claimants and thus before the panel for its consideration.