Whether a resale price maintenance (“RPM”) provision is deemed to infringe the Anti-Monopoly Law (“AML”) regardless of whether it has an impact on competition has been one of the most cloudy issues under the AML since the law came into effect in 2008. A recent decision by the Shanghai No.1 Intermediate People’s Court (“Shanghai Court”) has found that for RPM to infringe the AML it must have an adverse impact on competition. While it is still too early to say if this court decision will be followed by other Chinese courts, the decision provides valuable guidance for companies when considering how the AML will apply to their distribution agreements in China.
Continue Reading 限定转售价格–《反垄断法》下并非本身违法的情形
By Susan Ning,Liu Jia and Hazel Yin
On 3 May 2012,China’s Supreme People’s Court issued the Rules of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Hearing Civil Cases Caused by Monopolistic Conduct ("Rules").The Rules contain 16 articles covering standing of plaintiffs,jurisdiction,burden of proof,evidentiary rules,expert witness,the judicial process, form of civil liabilities and the statute of limitations.The Rules entered into force on 1 June 2012.
Compared to the draft Rules released last year for public comments ("Draft Rules")1,the Rules contain fewer articles and remain silent on a few issues that were previously addressed in the Draft Rules.This article discusses the major provisions in the Rules.…