 After a five-year investigation, the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (“SAIC”) has recently imposed an administrative penalty on the affiliates of Tetra Pak Group (“Tetra Pak”) for its abuse of dominant market position. In addition to a fine, Tetra Pak is imposed to discontinue its violations including discontinuing the tying of packaging material without justifiable reasons while providing machines and technical services. Tying is generally the practice of making the transaction conditional. Specifically, a business operator requires its customers to purchase other products or services while they purchase its product or service , and makes it a precondition for the transaction.
I. Tied Product
The Anti-Monopoly Law bans the tying through the clauses dealing with abuse of a dominant position, which is “business operators holding dominant market positions are prohibited from …without justifiable reasons, conducting tying of commodities…”. In practice, the business operators holding dominant market positions generally hold the advantageous positions when selling their commodities or services (“Tying Product”), and it is likely that they may take such advantages to require their customers to purchase at the same time their other commodities or services (“Tied Product”).
Tied Product should be entirely different, distinguishable and available individually from Tying Product. In Tetra Pak case, SAIC held the opinion that the aseptic carton filling machines, technical services and packaging materials are independent commodities from each other from the aspects of the functions and substitutions of commodities, demands and transaction management, etc, and therefore, it determined that Tetra Pak conducts tying when Tetra Pak requires its customers to purchase Tetra Pak packaging materials or the packaging materials “recognized by Tetra Pak” or “with same quality” within certain period as set forth by Tetra Pak when selling and leasing the aseptic carton filling machines and providing technical services.
II. How to determine the justifiable reasons in tying
Tying without justifiable reasons is forbidden by the Anti-Monopoly Law. However, the definition or explanation of justifiable reasons is in absent. There is a principle in the Provisions on the Prohibition of Abuse of Dominant Market Position published by SAIC that the following factors shall be considered when determining justifiable reasons: (1) whether the relevant act is adopted by a business operator for its normal business activities and normal benefit; and (2) impact of the relevant act on the economic operation efficiency, public interests and economic development. The provision is more like a slogan but with poor operability, which leaves significant discretion to the anti-monopoly enforcing authorities.
From the investigation and analysis of SAIC on the tying of Tetra Pak, we may catch a clearer standard to determine the justifiable reasons:
- Whether the business operator compulsorily ties or combines different products for sale against transaction practices, consumption habits, etc. Tetra Pak required its customers to purchase Tetra Pak packaging materials or the packaging materials “recognized by Tetra Pak” or “with same quality” when selling and leasing the aseptic carton filling machines and providing technical services. It appears that the above arrangement reserves certain right to the customers to choose packaging materials freely, but substantially, as there was no objective standard for “recognized by Tetra Pak” or “with same quality”, the customers had to choose Tetra Pak packaging materials, which resulted in the fact that Tetra Pak compulsorily tied its packaging materials.
- Whether the business operator limits its counterparty to freely choose the Tied Product. Obviously, the conditions set by Tetra Pak (please refer to the Decision on Administrative Penalty of SAIC for details) restrained or obstructed the freedom of its customers to purchase packaging materials in the market. Its customers had to use Tetra Pak packaging materials with no chance to use packaging materials of other brands.
- Whether the competition on the relevant market of the Tied Product is restrained. In Tetra Pak case, SAIC determined that the behavior that Tetra Pak limited or solicited its customers to purchase Tetra Pak packaging materials in various ways are to substantially affect the sales of other packaging materials operators, increase the competition cost of other business operators and damage the competition of the packaging materials market, by using its dominant market position in the machines and technical services market.
- Other factors. In the analysis and determination in Tetra Pak case, SAIC took into consideration the other factors, including (a) whether the tying has reasonable purpose; and (b) whether tying has significant rationality and necessity, etc.
The basis for SAIC to make the above determination is the same as that for determining the justifiable reasons of tying which excludes or restrains competition stipulated in the Provisions on Prohibiting the Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights to Exclude and Restrain Competition, which says that (1) Compulsorily tying or combining different products for sale against transaction practices, consumption habits, etc. or regardless of the functions of the products involved; and (2) Tying sales enable the business operator to extend its dominant position on the market of the tying product to the market of the tied product, thus excluding or restraining the competition from other business operators on the market of the tying product or the tied product. Other specific factors considered by SAIC in Tetra Pak case are also reflected in the section of analyzing the effects or potential effects of tying on the competition on relevant market of the Guidelines for Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement against the Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights (7th Draft of SAIC). The aforesaid two rules of SAIC only apply to the intellectual property related anti-monopoly cases; however, SAIC followed the approximately same determination standards when determining the justifiable reasons for tying in Tetra Pak case. In any future similar cases, it is very likely that SAIC will continue following the above standards which deserves our continued attention.
从利乐案看搭售行为正当理由的认定
在经历了近五年的调查之后，国家工商总局近日对利乐集团有关企业（”利乐”）滥用市场支配地位案件依法作出了行政处罚。除罚金外，国家工商总局责令利乐停止违法行为，包括不得在提供设备和技术服务时无正当理由搭售包材等。搭售行为一般以附条件交易之形式存在，即经营者要求交易相对人在购买其商品或服务时应同时购买经营者其他的商品或服务，并以此为交易先决条件。
一、被搭售商品
《反垄断法》对搭售行为的限制出现在禁止滥用市场地位的相关条款，即”禁止具有市场支配地位的经营者⋯没有正当理由搭售商品⋯”。实践中，具备市场支配地位的经营者在一般会在销售商品或服务（”主要商品”）时占据优势，并可能利用这种优势要求交易相对人同时购买经营者的其他商品或服务（”被搭售商品”）。
被搭售商品相对主要商品应该是完全不同的、可区分的、相互独立的商品。在利乐案中，国家工商总局从商品的功能、需求、可替代性及交易管理等角度认定纸基无菌包装设备、技术服务和包材属於各自独立的商品。因此，利乐公司在销售和出租纸基无菌包装设备及提供技术服务时，要求客户在利乐公司设定的特定期限内购买使用利乐包材或”经利乐认可”的或”同等品质”的包材，就属於”搭售”行为。
二、如何判断搭售有无”正当理由”
《反垄断法》禁止没有正当理由搭售商品行为，但对何为”正当理由”却未给出任何阐述或解释。国家工商总局在《禁止滥用市场支配地位行为的规定》原则性地表示，认定正当理由将综合考虑以下因素：（1）有关行为是否为经营者基於自身正常经营活动及正常效益而采取；及（2）有关行为对经济运行效率、社会公共利益及经济发展的影响。这一规定”口号性”强、”操作性”弱，执法机关具有较大的自由裁量权。
纵观国家工商总局对利乐案中利乐公司搭售行为的调查和分析，我们可以看出判断搭售有无”正当理由”的更为清晰的标准：
- 是否有违交易惯例或消费习惯等，将不同商品强制捆绑销售或者组合销售。利乐公司在销售、出租纸基无菌包装设备及提供技术服务时，要求客户在利乐公司设定的特定期限内购买使用利乐包材或”经利乐认可”的或”同等品质”的包材。虽然上述安排表面上一定程度上体现了利乐公司给予客户自由选择包材的权利，但是鉴於”经利乐认可”和”同等品质”无客观标准可以遵循，故客观上利乐公司客户往往不得不选择利乐包材，最终形成了利乐公司强制搭售包材的实际结果。
- 是否限制交易相对人对被搭售商品的自由选择。很显然，利乐公司所设定各项条件（详见国家工商总局行政处罚决定书）限制或妨碍了其客户在市场上采购包材的自由度，其客户不得不使用利乐公司包材，不使用或减少使用其他品牌包材。
- 是否限制被搭售商品相关市场的竞争力。在利乐案中，国家工商总局认定利乐以多种方式限制和诱导客户使用利乐包材实质上是借助其在设备、技术服务市场的支配地位，影响了其他包材经营者的销售，提高了其他经营者的竞争成本，损害了包材市场的竞争。
- 其它因素。国家工商总局在利乐案的分析认定过程中，亦考量了其他因素，例如（a）搭售行为是否具有合理目的；及（b）搭售行为是否具有重大合理性和必要性等。
国家工商总局做出上述认定的出发点与《关於禁止滥用知识产权排除、限制竞争行为的规定》中认定滥用知识产权排除、限制竞争的搭售行为是否具有”正当理由”的出发点如出一辙，即（1）违背交易惯例、消费习惯等或者无视商品的功能，将不同商品强制捆绑销售或者组合销售；和（2）实施搭售行为使该经营者将其在主要商品市场上的支配地位延伸到被搭售商品市场，排除、限制了其他经营者在被搭售商品或者主要商品市场上的竞争。国家工商总局在利乐案中所考虑的其它具体因素在《关於滥用知识产权的反垄断执法指南(国家工商总局第七稿)》中”分析搭售对相关市场的竞争产生或者可能产生的影响”章节亦有所体现。上述两份国家工商总局的规章文件仅适用於涉及知识产权的反垄断案件，但是，国家工商总局在利乐案中认定搭售行为是否具有”正当理由”时遵循了几近相同的认定标准。在未来类似的案件中，国家工商总局认定搭售行为是否具有”正当理由”时将极有可能继续延续上述标准，值得我们持续关注。
––––––––––––––
8F, Kerry Parkside Office,1155 Fang Dian Road, Shanghai 201204, P. R. China
Tel: (86) 21 50101666*911 / Fax: (86) 21 50101222
E: sean.liu@mhplawyer.com • info@mhplawyer.com
W: www.mhplawyer.com |
