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 The Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf rescinded this decision following an objection by Praktiker.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

L'accès à cet article est réservé aux abonnés

Déjà abonné ? Identifiez-vous

L’accès à cet article est réservé aux abonnés.

Lire gratuitement un article

Vous pouvez lire cet article gratuitement en vous inscrivant.

 

Version PDF

Auteurs

  • Gleiss Lutz (Munich)
  • Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy (Munich)

Citation

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 janvier 2008, e-Competitions January 2008, Art. N° 21244

Visites 1876

Tous les numéros

  • Latest News issue 
  • Tous les News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • Tous les Special issues