Shell Oil Co. owned a gas station and property in Deerfield Beach, Florida. In 1995, Shell entered into a “Motor Fuel Station Lease” with A. Z. Services, Inc., which provided that A. Z. would lease the gas station and property for five years. The parties also entered into a “Dealer Agreement,” which established a franchise agreement between the two parties. Under the Dealer Agreement, A. Z. had the right to operate the gas station under Shell’s trademarks, brand name, service marks, and other Shell identifications in connection with the sale of motor fuel and other petroleum products. A year later, without notice to or consent by Shell, A. Z. removed all Shell trademarks and identification, stopped selling Shell products, and began selling the products of a Shell competitor, Skipper’s Choice. Shell terminated the franchise agreement and filed suit seeking an injunction to prohibit A. Z. from selling Skipper’s Choice products and to vacate the property. A. Z. defended by claiming that Shell had unlawfully tied the lease of the property to the sale of Shell fuel. How should the court rule on this antitrust claim?