Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing plaintiff’s re-filed complaint alleging violation of Illinois Franchise Disclosure Act arising out of parties' use of defendant’s trademarks and business methods, where defendant had previously obtained favorable judgment against plaintiff on its Lanham Act claim against plaintiff seeking damages and injunctive relief arising out of plaintiff’s use/future use of defendant’s trademarks and business methods. Fact that both parties’ claims eventually were administratively consolidated did not require different result, even though plaintiff argued that res judicata could not apply to actions contained in consolidated lawsuit, where Ct. found that claims in administratively consolidated lawsuit remain essentially separate lawsuits. Moreover, dismissal of plaintiff’s claim would have been proper in fully consolidated action, since law of case doctrine would have applied to preclude plaintiff’s claim since injunctive relief that defendant obtained in its lawsuit against plaintiff would be inconsistent with relief plaintiff sought in its lawsuit against defendant.