[Editor’s note]2013year8month1On the morning of the same day, the Shanghai Higher People's Court made the final judgment on the vertical monopoly shoe machine dispute case between Beijing Ruibang Company and w88 sports betting & w88 sports betting Company.
The Shanghai High Court revoked the original judgment, and the second instance ruled that the respondent w88 sports betting & w88 sports betting should compensate the appellant Ruibang Company for economic losses in RMB within ten days from the date of the judgment taking effect53million yuan, rejecting Ruibang Company’s remaining claims.On the fifth anniversary of the implementation of China’s Anti-Monopoly Law, this case became the first effective judgment in Chinese history in which a plaintiff won a lawsuit. This also indicates that plaintiffs who are relatively weak in future monopoly disputes will be protected by law as long as they provide sufficient evidence.
Participating“The Second China Competition Policy Forum”'s well-known domestic antitrust law expert,Professor Huang Yong, Director of the Competition Law Center of the w88 casino, said after learning the content of the judgment in this case：“This is a historic landmark verdict,44000The more than half of the judgment contains incisive arguments and arguments, which shows that, following the United States and the European Union, Chinese courts not only have sufficient professional capabilities in hearing antitrust law cases, but have also developed trial concepts with their own characteristics.”
[Expert Vision]It is very valuable to create an analysis method with Chinese characteristics.
Huang Yong, deputy leader of the Expert Advisory Group of the Anti-Monopoly Committee of the State Council and director of the Competition Law Center of the w88 casinomeans,Since the implementation of my country’s Anti-Monopoly Law, theoretical research on anti-price monopoly has continued to deepen. The agreement signed by Ripon and w88 sports betting & w88 sports betting is a typical vertical monopoly agreement, known as resale price maintenance (RPM), currently, the antitrust law enforcement and judicial practices of major economies in the world have begun to re-examine the issues involvingRPMThe problem of case analysis method.
1911year, passed by the U.S. Supreme Court“MilesPharmaceutical company case”Established pairRPMAgreement applies“Principle of per se illegal”'s judgment method.2007Year,“Regent Case”14666_14680“Principle of Reasonability”As a starting point, analyze the minimum price or fixed priceRPMWhether the agreement is illegal. At the same time, the European Union is different from the United States in that it adopts a strict approach to vertical monopoly agreements“Prohibited in principle, exempted in individual cases”way.
I am very pleased to find that the Shanghai High Court fully drew on and referred to the judicial practices of the United States, the European Union and other countries when hearing the case of Ruibang Company and w88 sports betting & w88 sports betting, and put forward the basis based on my country's national conditions“Related Markets”、“Market position”、“Behavioral motivation”、“Competition Effect”An analysis method that considers four elements, and also proposes some specific judgment factors. The design of these analysis methods and judgment factors on the one hand protects price competition to maintain market vitality, and on the other hand does not hinder the normal business choices of enterprises. From a professional point of view, which method should be used to treat itRPM, is inseparable from the social and economic development status, the development status of anti-monopoly economics and anti-monopoly law, as well as the precise professional level of law enforcement agencies and law enforcement personnel. The Shanghai High Court has made useful innovations in this regard, which is commendable.
Attached report link:
http://www.chinacourt.org/article/detail/2013/08/id/1043222.shtml
