The Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf holds that exclusive purchase obligations contained in franchise agreements are not necessarily prohibited as unfair hindrances, even though they cover the whole assortment of goods (Baumarkt)

On 16 January 2008 the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf issued a decision on questions concerning the German prohibition of unfair hindrance, Sec. 20(1) of the German Act against Restraints on Competition (ARC). The questions arose in administrative proceedings by the German Federal Cartel Office against Praktiker, a German chain of building centres, for the purported unfair hindrance of its franchisees. The Federal Cartel Office established a breach of Secs. 20(1) and (2) ARC [1] . The Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf rescinded this decision following an objection by Praktiker. On appeal by one of the franchisees, the Federal Court of Justice on 11 November 2008 upheld the decision of the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf [2] . Facts Praktiker sells and distributes

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Authors

Quotation

Petra Linsmeier, Moritz Lichtenegger, The Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf holds that exclusive purchase obligations contained in franchise agreements are not necessarily prohibited as unfair hindrances, even though they cover the whole assortment of goods (Baumarkt), 16 January 2008, e-Competitions January 2008, Art. N° 21244

Visites 1875

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues