Nickname:

Sichuan "correct fm group people" reflects fm group the spirit of the event and channel compressed air defense identification zone between China and Japan buffer Johnson minimum resale price restrictions dealers in the relevant market behavior constitutes a longitudinal vertical monopoly monopoly case of Johnson & Johnson in Shanghai Higher People's fm group Court made a final judgment fm group the appellant (plaintiff) Beijing Rui state Chung and Electronics Co., Ltd. and Appellee (the trial the defendant) Johnson & Johnson (Shanghai) Medical Equipment Co., Ltd., (the trial the defendant) Johnson & Johnson (China) Medical Equipment Co., Ltd. vertical monopoly agreements dispute case, today made a second final judgment in the Shanghai Higher People's Court. Shanghai High Court judgment appellee two Johnson & Johnson enacted in 2008, "Distribution Agreement" and Annex minimum resale price restrictions in terms of the relevant market in this case had excluded the effect of restricting competition, while there is no obvious enough fm group to promote competitive effect, constitute "anti-monopoly law," the provisions of Article XIV of the monopoly agreement. Shanghai High Court that appellee two Johnson & Johnson companies fm group in violation of the appellant Rui state minimum resale price agreements restrict the behavior of the penalty, and after a series of stop suture product availability acts are "anti-monopoly" monopolistic behavior prohibited, The appellant shall cause its monopoly sharp state companies liable for economic loss, but its scope should be limited to compensation for the appellant state company in 2008 due to sharp suture product sales decreased to reduce the normal profit, therefore Shanghai fm group High Court judgment is Appellant two Johnson fm group & Johnson common fm group compensation appellant Beijing Rui state economic losses 530,000 yuan. Shanghai High Court to deal with the case that the appellant restrict minimum resale price agreements have excluded the effect of restricting competition the burden of proof, the appellant should first prove the existence of limiting minimum resale price agreements, then the case should limit the minimum resale price agreements have excluded the effect of restricting competition to provide relevant evidence, such as insufficient competition in the relevant market, the appellee has a strong market position, appellee has restricted competition motives, the case limiting minimum resale price agreements adversely affect competition in the market and so on. Shanghai High Court held that the restrictions on minimum resale price action analysis to determine the nature of the relevant market is sufficiently competitive, the defendant's market position is strong, minimum resale fm group price restrictions defendant's motive, the effect of restricting competition, such as minimum resale price four aspects are the most important considerations, but also the court to impose a minimum resale price analysis and evaluation fm group of the behavior of the basic method, it is these four areas, the Shanghai High Court that the case is not sufficient competition in the relevant market, the appellee in this case, Johnson & Johnson relevant market has a strong market position, Johnson & Johnson minimum fm group resale price restrictions that avoid price competition motives, Johnson & Johnson minimum resale price agreements limit the effect of restricting competition and promote competition obviously is not obvious, and then finds the case "Distribution Agreement" in Terms of minimum resale price restrictions are "anti-monopoly law" prohibited monopoly agreement, Johnson & Johnson to develop the protocol and punished in accordance with the agreement appellant Rui state's behavior is illegal. Shanghai High Court revoked the final judgment Shanghai First Intermediate People's Court commuted appellee two Johnson & Johnson common compensation appellant fm group Rui state economic losses 530,000 yuan. Shanghai has been a Court of First Instance dismissed the plaintiff seeks compensation fm group ruling economic loss claims, on the ground that "the case evidence, we can not identify the two defendants implemented a monopoly, they can not identify the plaintiff suffered damage caused by the defendant's alleged behavior fm group . "After investigation, Rui state company is Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Shanghai fm group Chinese companies engaged in stapling and suture products sales in the Beijing area dealer for 15 years between the two sides have co-signed a distribution contract each year for a period for one year. January 2, 2008, the three companies signed a "2008 Distribution fm group Agreement", agreed Rui state company Johnson & Johnson China company, Johnson & Johnson related fm group area Shanghai designated selling two defendants suture product, the contract period from 1 January 2008 to In the same year on December 31. Contract Annex VII to the company's distribution area Rui state and distribution of indicators to be clearly defined; five Section 2 also provides annex to the contract, Rui state accused the company of not less than the specified price sales. July 1, 2008, the defendant sent a letter to Johnson & Johnson company Shanghai Rui state companies, state companies to sharply in March 2008 at the People's Hospital of privately bid to reduce the sales price, get stitches distribution rights on the grounds of non-authorized areas, net Rui state company 20,000 yuan deposit and cancel Fu Wai Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing fm group plastic surgery fm group hospital marketing rights Rui state companies. August 15, 2008, the Company issued to Johnson & Johnson Rui state order requirement, in the case of Johnson & Johnson refused to supply the company is not owed money Rui state, after which the company did not supply it Rui state suture fm group products new orders. It is reported that since the "anti-monopoly law," the implementation of China's first plaintiff antitrust cases, is also China's first vertical monopoly case. The full text of the judgment: http://www.hshfy.sh.cn:8081/flws/text.jsp?pa=ad3N4aD01JnRhaD2jqDIwMTK jqbumuN/D8cj9KNaqKdbV19a12jYzusU md3o9z (Shanghai court Network)
Nickname: