• Uncategorized

In the past, the Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court has focused on whether the agreement “excludes competition in a significant part of the relevant commercial line.” (8) However, the current practice of courts of appeal assesses the legality of exclusive distribution by examining a wide range of factors. (9) This Chapter reviews the exclusive distribution right, examines the potential anti-competitive and anti-competitive effects of exclusive distribution, and sets out the Ministry`s views on certain legal issues relating to the treatment of exclusive distribution. Panelists also argued that `the level of distribution really matters`(75) and that the competitive effects of exclusive distribution with wholesalers may differ from those with retailers or final consumers. (76) At least one of them noted that the potential for anti-competitive injury may depend on the product concerned and argued that if the product is a product for which customers are likely to buy, exclusive distribution may be less detrimental to competitors because consumers are `more likely to be able to do so. . . . look at others… Retailer”, if a “dealer has only one brand”. (77) In particular, exclusive distribution may be detrimental if it deprives competitors of `the measure necessary to achieve efficiency gains`, even if, without exclusivity, `more than one undertaking would be`. be large enough to achieve efficiency.

(68) In other words, exclusive distribution can be a means of obtaining or maintaining monopoly power by affecting the ability of competitors to become effective competitors that undermine the position of the undertaking. As one panelist put it, “the exclusive business case you should worry about” is where exclusivity deprives rivals of the ability to achieve economies of scale. (69) Shortly thereafter, the Court examined the refusal of a newspaper to sell advertising to undertakings which also purchased advertising from a new radio station. (27) Some commentators regard this practice as an attempt by the newspaper to be the exclusive provider of local advertising to its customers. (28) The Court noted that Section 2 of the Sherman Act prohibits the newspaper from attempting to “regain” its “substantial monopoly” by forcing the radio station into bankruptcy(29) and found that the newspaper was violating antitrust laws “by using its monopoly to destroy threatened competition”. (30) Some commentators argue that this is an example of an exclusivity agreement with obvious anti-competitive effects, but no pro-competitive redemptive effect. (31) Market auctions. In order to assert its claim according to the defendant`s market definition and proof of market power, the applicant must prove that the exclusive distribution agreement essentially excluded it from competition on the market. This is an evolving area of law because economists who study foreclosure are ahead of the courts and agencies that analyze the problem in litigation.