Anti-trust Archives - Page 3 of 3 - Bridge IP Law Commentary

Full Text of the Anti-trust Punishment Ordered by China NDRC against MaoTai and WuLiangYe Vertical Pricing Monopoly

Posted on February 26, 2013 by yytbest

The Price Bureaus under the Provincial Development and Reform Commissions in Sichuan Province and Guizhou Province published their orders for punishment against the vertical pricing monopoly by MaoTai and WuLiangYe on their official websites. By the orders, the two distilleries were fined totaled RMB 449 million yuan (approximately $ 72, 064, 500 dollar). The following is our translation of the full text of the administrative punishments already ordered.

The punishment ordered by Sichuan Provincial Development and Reform Commission:

Would NDRC’s Vertical Pricing Monopoly Fine against MaoTai and WuLiangYe Have Influences on Other China Companies?

Posted on February 25, 2013 by yytbest

(By You Yunting) Over the past few days, the writer shared two essays concerning the administrative punishment ordered against Mao Tai Company and Wu Liang Ye Company, the top distilleries in China, over the accusation that they violated the Anti Monopoly Law by concluding monopoly agreements restricting or fixing retail prices (the “monopoly agreements”) with their dealers. The writer has received heated comments and arguments from the subscribers and followers of his Weibo and Blog. Many of these comments support the punishment, but some friends have expressed concerns over the issue. Today, the writer will share his opinions on whether the punishment will influence the normal commercial order.

How MaoTai and Wu Liang Ye Would Defend Against Vertical Pricing Monopoly Fines ordered by China NDRC?

Posted on February 25, 2013 by yytbest

(By You Yunting) Abstract: Both Mao Tai and Wu Liang Ye can rely on one of the seven situations in Article 15 of the Anti Monopoly Law for their defense. But, that defense will not be easy because it requires evidence that the relevant agreements will not limit market competitors and that consumers can share the interests produced by the agreements.

In yesterday’s post, the writer analyzed the legal meaning of the punishment ordered by the National Development and Reform Commission (“NDRC”) against two top Chinese distilleries, Mao Tai and Wu Liang Ye. Today’s post will go one step further to describe the way for Mao Tai and Wu Liang Ye can protect their own interests.

The Legal Sense of the Punishment over the Vertical Monopoly of Mao Tai and Wu Liang Ye By NDRC

Posted on February 21, 2013 by yytbest

(You Yunting) According to the report, Mao Tai Company and Wu Liang Ye Company, both are the top distilleries in China, would be ordered the penalty of 1% of their annual sales in 2012, approximately RMB 449 million yuan, by the National Development and Reform Commission (the “NDRC”) for their restricting or fixing the retail price of their downstream dealers. You might have noticed “would be”, and we have no idea about whether the final decision has been made, and it could not exclude the possibility that the news report is only the public opinion test by NDRC for its punishment in consideration.

Administrative Warning Issued to 360.cn by Beijing Administration of Industry and Commerce

Posted on February 13, 2013 by yytbest

(By You Yunting) Recently, the Beijing Municipal Administration of Industry and Commerce (“Administration”) published on its official Weibo that the Beijing Administration and Xicheng Administration of Industry and Commerce made an appointment with the chief of Beijing’s Qihoo Co. (“Qihoo”), and issued an administrative warning against company conduct, claiming violations of unfair competition laws and regulations related to its “360 Safeguard” for use in computer internet browsers.

Damages from Over Promotion by E-retailers

Posted on August 16, 2012 by yytbest

Recently, a sale’s promotion campaign (note: the link is in Chinese) is launched by China e-commerce merchants on Weibo, a twitter like website. On 14th August, Mr. Liu Qiangdong, CEO of 360buy.com made a statement on Weibo that all the major home appliances sold on his website will maintain ZERO gross profit in the coming 3 years, and will also be 10% cheaper than those sold by Sunning and Gome, who are also the major E-retailers in China. Facing the challenge, Sunning (SZSE: 002024) and Gome (SEHK: 493) replied that all their commodities will be cheaper than 360buy.com. After that, both sides announced they will adjust the prices in time to ensure its own prices are lower than the opponent. The quarrel on Weibo triggered a promotion battle between the e-retailers, and after the 1st day of fighting, 360buy.com said the total sales of the day had been over RMB 200 million.

Can Court Challenge Leviathan with New Anti-monopoly Judicial Interpretation?

Posted on May 16, 2012 by You Yunting

By Frank Yu

China anti-monopoly law, judicial jurisdiction, burden of proof, liability scope, anti-monopoly judicial interpretation, administrative monopoly, the industries which exercise monopoly over the production and sale of certain commodities, price supervision, public company, operator with monopolic position, abuse dominant position in the market, market structure, competition condition, market dominant position determination, regulation on monopolic conduct, sell with price lower than cost, refuse to transact, different treatment of price, fairness, justice, independence of courts, large scale state-owned enterprise, fair competition, economy operation efficiency, consumer interests, social public interests, administrative level, anti-monopoly lawsuit social effect, state secret, business secret, personal privacy, opened hearing, showed to the agent, confidentiality commitment, expert witness, cross inquiry

The Highlight of the Anti-Monopoly Judicial Interpretation

Posted on May 11, 2012 by You Yunting

By You Yunting

On 8^th May of 2012, the Supreme People’s Court (the “SPC”) issued the Regulations on Several Issues concerning the Law Application in the Hearing of Civil Disputes Arising from the Monopolistic Conduct (the “Judicial Interpretations”). By the Judicial Interpretations, the people’s court shall accept the lawsuit filed by the citizens for the monopolistic conduct; for the joint-price-increasing and other monopolistic conducts, the alleged company shall take the burden of proof. According to the statement of the SPC, the anti-monopoly lawsuit shall be no longer pre-conditioned by the administrative determination. The regulation will come into effect from 1^st of June. This is another major event after the enforcement of Anti-monopoly Law from 1^st August 2008, today, we will make introduce you the highlight of the new regulation.

Full Text of Judicial Interpretation on Anti-Monopoly Law of China Supreme Court

Posted on May 9, 2012 by You Yunting

The Supreme People’s Court issued Regulation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Cases arising from Monopolistic Conducts yesterday and the new judicial interpretation of Anti-Monopoly Law will take effect on 1st June, 2012. We have translated the Chinese version into English as follows:

Regulation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Cases arising from Monopolistic Conducts

To ensure the proper judgment of civil disputes arising from the monopoly, prevent monopolistic conducts, protecting and promoting fair competition in the market, safeguarding the interests of consumers and social public interests, this regulation is enacted according to the relevant regulations such as the Anti-monopoly Law of the People’s Republic of China, the General Principle of the Civil Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Tort Liability, the Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China and the Civil Procedural Law of the Peoples Republic of China.

Anti-Trust Law: Please Leave A Window to the Private Enterprise

Posted on May 4, 2012 by You Yunting

Abstract: The merger between Youku and Tudou has drawn wide attention of the medias. Someone event quoted the relevant administrative regulation to demand the initiation of the anti-trust investigation. Well, I hold the different opinion against it. It’s actually infeasible to take a monopoly status in China of private company in China, and to my opinion, the merger and acquisition by private sector shall be permitted by law and exempted from the investigation of anti-trust, which is complying with the purpose of legislature as well as the value orientation of the current phrase.

Does Combination of Youku and Tudou breach China Anti-monopoly law?

Posted on March 13, 2012 by You Yunting

Reportedly(the report is in Chinese), the two Chinese leading video websites, Youku.com Inc. (NYESE: YOUKU) (“Youku”) and Tudou Holdings Ltd. (NASDAQ: TUDOU) (“Tudou”) jointly announced today that on 11^th March, 2012, they have signed a definitive agreement for the combination of Tudou and Youku in a 100% stock for stock transaction, which has been approved by each party’s board of director but still waiting for the shareholders’ approval, and is planned to be completed in the third quarter of 2012.I think, it shall be noted that some anti-monopoly issues may be arisen from the combination of the two Chinese biggest video websites, which possibly resulting adverse impacts on the rights and interests of consumers and fair competition.

A Compromise between Michael Jordan and Qiaodan Sports?

Posted on March 12, 2012 by You Yunting

Reportedly (Note this report is in Chinese), Michael Jordan, the star sportsman of NBA, recently made a statement that Qiaodan Sports Co., Ltd. (“Qiaodan Sports”) is suspected of infringement on his right of name, and he had initiated the legal proceeding in the People’s Court of China. And by the late news, the Shanghai Second Intermediate People’s Court has accepted this case. It is reported (Note this report is in Chinese) that the Qiaodan Sports has been approved by the Issuance Examination Committee of Shanghai Stock Exchange (SSE) to issue 11.25 million shares collecting RMB 1.06 billion, which would be issued publicly upon the future approval of China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC). (the image above is the trademark information retrieved from the trademark office of PRC)

Bridge IP Law Commentary

Your Guide to China IP Law！

Category Archives: Anti-trust