For the Court finds logic, umbrella I still reservations, I think, according umbrella to the

More >>
Yesterday, why Shanghai is no judgment by the High Court "in accordance with the provisions of Article 14 of the antitrust laws? "Article describes the case of Johnson & Johnson resale price restrictions dealer first legal issue, and today, we will introduce why the court found that Johnson & Johnson dealer resale price restrictions constitute a monopoly agreement? This article describes the relevant excerpt from the case verdict.
Rui state company comments: Johnson & Johnson umbrella resale price restrictions designed to limit competition on the market of the actual effect of restricting competition. Johnson & Johnson in both the "Distribution Agreement" limited appellant directly to the third party's sales price, but also complemented penalties for not follow price limits taken, within the limits of its brand competition by controlling the resale price is very obvious purpose . In fact, Johnson & Johnson implementing resale price restrictions, neither to promote new products, but also to promote a non-competitive factors umbrella in order to improve the other, totally does not have the effect of promoting competition in product technology. Instead, Johnson & Johnson resale price restrictions implementing acts, distort market competition mechanism, both to restrict competition within the brand, but also limits competition between brands, so Johnson in Beijing suture umbrella product prices remain at a very high level, serious umbrella harm the interests of consumers.
Johnson comments: restrict resale price agreements involved in this case exclude the effect of restricting competition does not exist, contrary Johnson can improve intra-brand competition between dealers. Products involved in the case of medical suture products fully open and competitive in the Chinese mainland market, different brands of products is very competitive and there are always new brands and operators to enter this market. Therefore, the hospital has a strong buyer power, the choice of different brands and prices have the final decision, so the price of maintaining the terms of Johnson & Johnson umbrella does not have an impact umbrella on the price of other brands, but also due to the existence of actual competition rather difficult umbrella to implement . On the other hand, over the years, umbrella Johnson & Johnson continue to introduce new products for medical sutures, limiting Johnson & Johnson entered into between the resale price agreements with dealers, non-price competition can promote internal Johnson & Johnson brand dealers, such as product promotion, sale service brand to maintain, good faith compliance and so on.
Theoretical basis for the decision in the present case the Court can be summarized as follows: If the fierce competition in the relevant market, the brands of minimum resale price restrictions dealer behavior between different brands will not harm the interests of consumers and competition order, and only in the relevant market Under the competition is poor, the low level of demand substitution, the brands of minimum resale umbrella price restrictions dealer behavior will undermine internal dealer between competing brands, umbrella and thus harm the interests of consumers, thus constituting vertical monopoly.
For the Court finds logic, umbrella I still reservations, I think, according umbrella to the "anti-monopoly law," the provisions of Article umbrella 14, as long as there is a limit to the dealer's behavior umbrella and this behavior does not comply with the limit of Article 15 of the Act exemption condition constitutes an offense, the law does not require the plaintiff the adequacy of the relevant market competition, the defendant carried a strong market position is demonstrated. Four questions Shanghai High Court in the first two of the legal basis for the anti-monopoly law should be the second paragraph of Article 13, but the contents of two questions 1 and 2 of Article 13 is not consistent, that is to say, Court in accordance with the idea of solving umbrella these two problems is the lack of legal basis for the case.
Ø Article 15 paragraph: operators can prove that the agreement reached is one of the following circumstances, this Act does not apply Article XIII, Article 14 states: umbrella
Previous: NDRC fined milk companies have a chance to win prosecute it? After a: NDRC price monopoly law enforcement should be increased transparency