000049110 000__ 03047cam\a22003855i\4500
000049110 001__ 49110
000049110 003__ SzGeWIPO
000049110 005__ 20240708150417.0
000049110 006__ m    eo  d        
000049110 007__ cr bn |||m|||a
000049110 008__ 240321s2023\\\\enk\\\\\o\\\\\000\0\eng\d
000049110 0247_ $$a10.1093/grurint/ikad097$$2doi
000049110 035__ $$a(OCoLC)1427545897
000049110 040__ $$aSzGeWIPO$$beng$$erda$$cSzGeWIPO$$dCaBNVSL
000049110 041__ $$aeng
000049110 24500 $$aTying as an Unfair Trade Practice.
000049110 264_1 $$a[Oxford, England] :$$bOxford University Press (OUP),$$c2023
000049110 300__ $$a1 online resource (pages 1099–1103)
000049110 336__ $$atext$$2rdacontent
000049110 337__ $$acomputer$$2rdamedia
000049110 338__ $$aonline resource$$bcr$$2rdacarrier
000049110 4901_ $$aGRUR International,$$x2632-8550 ;$$v72, 11, 2023
000049110 520__ $$aAntimonopoly Act, Secs. 2(9)(vi), 19, 24 – Color Creation & Elecom v Brother  Headnotes by Atsuhiro Furuta 1. Where technical measures (here: changing the circuit design of new printers) are implemented without any technical necessity but in order to tie goods in the aftermarket – by making previously compatible toner cartridges unusable, thereby creating the risk of excluding competitors from the market in the tied goods (here: toner cartridges) – such measures amount to an unfair trade practice (here: unlawful tying) under the Antimonopoly Act.  2. Where the exclusionary effect lasted only a relatively short period of time (here: three months) and there is no risk of a repetition of such unlawful conduct, injunctive relief under Sec. 24 Antimonopoly Act must be refused.  Tokyo District Court, judgment of 30 September 2021 ‒ 35167 (Wa) of 2019 1 Facts: 1. Outline of the case The plaintiffs, who produce and sell ink cartridges that can be used for the defendant’s 5-type printers, argue that the defendant has unfairly excluded them from the market of cartridges which could be used for the above printers, by unreasonably changing the circuit design, thereby making the defendant’s printers no longer recognise the plaintiffs’ cartridges. This would amount to a contravention of the Antimonopoly Act (AMA) (breach of Secs. 19 AMA, 2(9)(vi)(c) and (f) AMA, items 10 (tying) and 14 (unjustly interfering with the business of a competitor) of the Fair Trade Commission’s General Designation of Unfair Trade Practices No. 15 of 19822). The plaintiff claims against the defendant (α) injunctive relief of the above circuit design change for the above printers under Sec. 24 AMA, and (β) damages on behalf of the defendant Elecom in the amount of JPY 15,729,364 plus interest.
000049110 542__ $$fhttps://academic.oup.com/grurint/article/72/3/231/6998505
000049110 588__ $$aCrossref
000049110 590__ $$aPublished online: 12-Sep-23
000049110 650_0 $$aIntellectual property.
000049110 650_0 $$aCompetition law$$zJapan.
000049110 650_0 $$aMonopolistic competition.
000049110 650_0 $$aPatents.
000049110 7731_ $$tGRUR International$$wGRUR
000049110 830_0 $$aGRUR International,$$x2632-8550 ;$$v72, 11, 2023.
000049110 85641 $$uhttps://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikad097$$yonline version
000049110 904__ $$aJournal article
000049110 980__ $$aGRUR