@article{49110, recid = {49110}, title = {Tying as an Unfair Trade Practice.}, pages = {1 online resource (pages 1099–1103)}, abstract = {Antimonopoly Act, Secs. 2(9)(vi), 19, 24 – Color Creation & Elecom v Brother Headnotes by Atsuhiro Furuta 1. Where technical measures (here: changing the circuit design of new printers) are implemented without any technical necessity but in order to tie goods in the aftermarket – by making previously compatible toner cartridges unusable, thereby creating the risk of excluding competitors from the market in the tied goods (here: toner cartridges) – such measures amount to an unfair trade practice (here: unlawful tying) under the Antimonopoly Act. 2. Where the exclusionary effect lasted only a relatively short period of time (here: three months) and there is no risk of a repetition of such unlawful conduct, injunctive relief under Sec. 24 Antimonopoly Act must be refused. Tokyo District Court, judgment of 30 September 2021 ‒ 35167 (Wa) of 2019 1 Facts: 1. Outline of the case The plaintiffs, who produce and sell ink cartridges that can be used for the defendant’s 5-type printers, argue that the defendant has unfairly excluded them from the market of cartridges which could be used for the above printers, by unreasonably changing the circuit design, thereby making the defendant’s printers no longer recognise the plaintiffs’ cartridges. This would amount to a contravention of the Antimonopoly Act (AMA) (breach of Secs. 19 AMA, 2(9)(vi)(c) and (f) AMA, items 10 (tying) and 14 (unjustly interfering with the business of a competitor) of the Fair Trade Commission’s General Designation of Unfair Trade Practices No. 15 of 19822). The plaintiff claims against the defendant (α) injunctive relief of the above circuit design change for the above printers under Sec. 24 AMA, and (β) damages on behalf of the defendant Elecom in the amount of JPY 15,729,364 plus interest.}, url = {http://tind.wipo.int/record/49110}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikad097}, }