The German Federal Court of Justice holds that a franchisor's advertisement containing sale prices can constitute a prohibited retail price maintenance if the franchisor does not explicitly limit the indication of price to his own branches or clearly indicates that they are not binding for the franchisees (Apollo)

Seeliger, Daniela

Previous article The Hungarian Competition Authority objects to RPM and exclusive purchasing in petrol station franchising agreements (MOL) Next article The German Federal Cartel Office imposes a fine on a specialist retailer for not having clearly distinguished his own branches from the franchisees with regard to pricing and advertisement policies, thus restricting the franchisee’s freedom to determine their own retail prices

20 May 2003

The German Federal Court of Justice holds that a franchisor’s advertisement containing sale prices can constitute a prohibited retail price maintenance if the franchisor does not explicitly limit the indication of price to his own branches or clearly indicates that they are not binding for the franchisees (Apollo)

KEYWORDS

Reference

German Federal Court of Justice, Apollo, BGH Kartellsenat, KZR 27/02, 20 May 2003 (German)

Description of the impugned case The case deals with indirect RPM in the framework of a franchising system. The BGH holds that if a franchisor who distributes his products both, via a franchise system and via his

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

Author

Daniela Seeliger
Linklaters (Düsseldorf)

Germany 17 contributions 18750 visits

Quotation

Daniela Seeliger, The German Federal Court of Justice holds that a franchisor’s advertisement containing sale prices can constitute a prohibited retail price maintenance if the franchisor does not explicitly limit the indication of price to his own branches or clearly indicates that they are not binding for the franchisees (Apollo), 20 May 2003, e-Competitions Franchising, Art. N° 31716

Visites 695