“Whoa”-ing Equine Clones’ Registration: Establishing Procompetitive Benefits to Counter the Anticompetitive Argument Against American Quarter Horse Association’s Ban on Clones
MetadataShow full item record
This Note examines Abraham and Veneklasen Joint Venture v. American Quarter Horse Association, in which a United States district court ruled that the American Quarter Horse Association’s rule banning clones of registered quarter horses from also being registered violated section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The author explores potential procompetitive justifications that AQHA has established for its rule, including the negative impact clones would likely have on the genetic variation of the breed and genetic diseases. The author argues that the district court erred by overlooking the plausibility of the justifications and that the rule of reason analysis should have been conducted. Finally, the author concludes that AQHA, like other associations that essentially create the “product” in question, must be afforded the opportunity to present procompetitive benefits and have these benefits considered by the court.