Short Reads

Brand owners beware: Commission tough on cross-border sales restrictions

Brand owners beware: Commission tough on cross-border sales restricti

Brand owners beware: Commission tough on cross-border sales restrictions

01.08.2019 NL law

The European Commission recently imposed a EUR 6.2 million fine on Hello Kitty owner Sanrio for preventing its licensees from selling licensed merchandising products across the entire EEA. Sanrio is the second licensor (after Nike) to be fined for imposing territorial sales restrictions on its non-exclusive licensees for licensed merchandise. A third investigation into allegedly similar practices by Universal Studios is ongoing. The case confirms the Commission's determination to tackle these practices, regardless of type or form.

This should represent a clear call for companies to double-check their distribution and licensing agreements for cross-border sales restrictions, and take any necessary action.

According to the Commission's press release, Sanrio's non-exclusive licensing agreements infringed EU competition rules by containing clauses i) explicitly prohibiting out-of-territory sales by licensees, ii) committing licensees to refer orders for out-of-territory sales to Sanrio, and iii) limiting the languages used on the merchandising products. Sanrio kept tabs on the licensees' compliance with these territorial restrictions, and made clear the consequences of non-compliance, by conducting audits and refusing to renew contracts with non-abiding licensees. In line with the Commission's practice rewarding cooperation outside cartel cases [see our January 2018 Newsletter], Sanrio obtained a 40% fine reduction for having cooperated beyond its legal obligation to do so.

The fine on Sanrio fits into the Commission's increased focus on vertical restraints, initiated by its 2017 e-commerce sector report [see our June 2017 Newsletter]. Fines have already been imposed for (online and offline) resale price maintenance and territorial restrictions. National competition authorities, such as the Dutch ACM, the French Autorité de la Concurrence and the German Bundeskartellamt, are also stepping up the pace in the quest against vertical restrictions.

The review of the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation (VBER), due to expire in 2022, could therefore not have come at a better time. Not only is a uniform approach on how to enforce vertical restrictions among EU competition authorities long overdue, more guidance and clarity would also benefit companies when concluding vertical agreements. According to the evaluation roadmap, the VBER's review should be ready by the second quarter of next year. It will therefore soon be clearer whether good things indeed come to those who wait.

 

This article was published in the Competition Newsletter of August 2019. Other articles in this newsletter:

 

Team

Related news

20.09.2022 EU law
Launch of Metaverse blog series

Articles - Stibbe launches a new blog series focusing on the legal challenges of the Metaverse. In our upcoming blog posts, we will discuss the legal challenges of NFTs, crypto-assets, Metaverse platforms, crypto exchanges, DAO, and many more.

Read more

28.07.2022 NL law
Zuiver commercieel belang ook gerechtvaardigd belang: Raad van State laat zich er niet over uit

Short Reads - Op 27 juli 2022 heeft de Raad van State bevestigd dat de Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens onterecht een boete van € 575.000 aan VoetbalTV heeft opgelegd. De hoop bestond dat de Afdeling antwoord zou geven op de vraag of de AP terecht of onterecht meent dat een zuiver commercieel belang géén gerechtvaardigd belang kan zijn in de zin van de Algemene Verordening Gegevensbescherming. Het antwoord op deze vraag blijft echter uit.  

Read more

03.08.2022 EU law
Gotta catch ‘em all? Upward referral of ‘killer acquisitions’ upheld

Short Reads - Companies involved in intended or completed M&A transactions falling below EU and national merger notification thresholds should beware that their deals may still catch the European Commission’s eye. The General Court has upheld the Commission’s decision to accept a national referral request regarding Illumina’s acquisition of Grail: a transaction not triggering any of the notification thresholds within the EEA.

Read more

28.07.2022 NL law
Purely commercial interest also a legitimate interest? Council of State leaves the question unanswered.

Short Reads - On 27 July 2022, the Council of State confirmed that the Dutch Data Protection Authority wrongly imposed a €575,000 fine on VoetbalTV. But the Council did not answer the question whether the AP rightly or wrongly believes that a purely commercial interest cannot be a legitimate interest within the meaning of the General Data Protection Regulation.

Read more

06.07.2022 NL law
Highest Dutch court: the postman may still ring twice?

Short Reads - The Dutch Minister of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy was wrong to unblock the ACM’s prohibited merger between postal operators PostNL and Sandd on grounds of public interest. According to the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb), the Minister cannot substitute the ACM’s assessment for its own when considering public interest reasons. Since the Minister did do so in this particular case, the CBb annulled the Minister’s merger clearance.

Read more