Short Reads

Nike can restrict sales via online platforms within its selective distribution system

Nike can restrict sales via online platforms within its selective distribution system

01.11.2017 EU law

On 4 October 2017, the District Court of Amsterdam ruled* in favour of sports goods manufacturer Nike in an action against a distributor, Action Sport, which had not complied with Nike's selective distribution policy. The District Court found that Nike's selective distribution system, which included a ban on sales via non-authorised online platforms, was compatible with competition law as it sought to preserve the luxury image of Nike's products.

In 2012, Action Sport and Nike agreed upon a new distribution policy which stipulated that authorised retailers like Action Sport were not allowed to sell Nike products via non-authorised parties. Notwithstanding this policy, Action Sport offered Nike products for sale on Amazon, an non-authorised online platform. Nike subsequently terminated the distribution agreement and sued Action Sport before the District Court of Amsterdam. In its defence, Action Sport argued that Nike's selective distribution system restricted competition and as such was null and void.

Firstly, the District Court held that Nike's distribution system qualified as a 'selective distribution system' and that Nike had applied the selection criteria uniformly and without discrimination. Secondly, the District Court referred to the opinion of AG Wahl in the Coty case: "that, having regard to their characteristics and their nature, luxury goods may require the implementation of a selective distribution system in order to preserve the quality of those goods and to ensure that they are properly used." Following this reasoning, the District Court ruled that Nike was allowed to set up a selective distribution system to preserve the luxury image of its products.

The District Court went on to dismiss Action Sport's argument that the ban on sales via non-authorised platforms was anticompetitive. Again, the District Court referred to AG Wahl, ruling that quality requirements in a selective distribution system may not have the desired effect if the products are offered for sale via non-authorised platforms. As it was undisputed that Amazon was not an authorised retailer, the District Court concluded that Nike had the right to terminate the distribution agreement.

The permitted scope of online sales restrictions in selective distribution systems has been one of the key topics recently discussed in the European Commission's e-commerce sector inquiry and in national case law [see our February 2016, May 2017 and June 2017 Newsletters]. The District Court of Amsterdam has clearly stated through this judgment that an online platform ban is not always considered a hardcore restriction of competition. More clarity will be provided by the judgment of the European Court of Justice in Coty case which is expected to be issued in early 2018.

*For unknown reasons the previously published judgment has been removed from the website on which Dutch court judgments are published.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of November 2017. Other articles in this newsletter:

  1. General Court annuls UPC/Ziggo merger decision
  2. General Court rules that luxury watchmakers can limit supply of parts to approved repairers
  3. General Court upholds fine for 'gun jumping' EU merger control procedure
  4. European Commission orders the recovery of State aid of around EUR 250 million from Amazon
  5. Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal rules on cover pricing
  6. KLM and Amsterdam Schiphol airport offer commitments to reduce competition concerns

Team

Related news

13.02.2018 BE law
Du nouveau en matière de « plans et programmes » !

Articles - Dans ses conclusions du 25 janvier 2018 établies dans le cadre de deux demandes de décision préjudicielle formées par le Conseil d’Etat de Belgique, l’avocat général J. KOKOTT a considéré que le périmètre de remembrement urbain en Wallonie et le règlement régional d’urbanisme en Région de Bruxelles-Capitale sont des « plans et programmes ».

Read more

16.02.2018 EU law
Who is a consumer? The dynamic approach to the concept of 'consumer' under the Brussels I Regulation

Short Reads - On 25 January 2018, the European Court of Justice ("ECJ") rendered a preliminary ruling in a case between Austrian citizen Maximilian Schrems and online social network Facebook. The ruling is important for two reasons. First, the ECJ approved a dynamic approach to the concept of 'consumer' under the Brussels I Regulation. Secondly, the ECJ clarified that the special consumer forum can only be invoked by the specific consumer who is party to the contractual relationship with the professional trader.

Read more

01.02.2018 EU law
Participation d’entreprises liées aux marchés publics: qui assume la responsabilité ?

Articles - L’avocat général Campos Sanchez-Bordona a récemment déposé des conclusions intéressante dans le cadre de l’affaire nr. C-531/A6 dont la Cour de justice a été saisie. Selon l’avocat général, des soumissionnaires qui sont liés mais qui présentent chacun une offre séparée pour un marché public déterminé n’ont pas à informer le pouvoir adjudicateur des liens existant entre eux. Il ressort en outre des conclusions que le pouvoir adjudicateur n’est pas légalement tenu de vérifier de manière active la participation d’entreprises liées à un marché public.

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy and Cookie Policy