Progressive Grocer’s Post

United States: Law360 – Rare Robinson-Patman ruling exhibits key antitrust risk: On 20 May, the US District Court for the Central District of California affirmed a seven-figure jury verdict and granted a permanent injunction in a rare Robinson-Patman Act decision. The RPA is an antitrust statute that prohibits certain kinds of price discrimination in goods purchased for resale. The case, LA International Corp. v. Prestige Brands Holdings, was pursued by a group of local wholesaler plaintiffs that claimed a defendant eye drop manufacturer and its subsidiaries sold the plaintiffs eye drops on less favorable terms than the defendant's club store wholesale customer. The post United States: Law360 – Rare Robinson-Patman ruling exhibits key antitrust risk appeared first on Global Compliance News. -via @bakermckenzie

The Maritime and Commercial High Court upholds the DCCA’s decision: Exchange of information between clothing retailers constituted a “by object” restriction of competition Yesterday, the Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court’s judgement of 6 May 2024 in the Hugo Boss-case was published. The Court decided to upheld the Danish Competition and Consumer Authority’s (“DCCA”) two decisions against the three clothing companies, Hugo Boss, Kaufmann and Ginsborg, finding that the companies had illegally exchanged commercially sensitive information about prices, rebates and volumes. As Hugo Boss sells Boss products directly to consumers in its own stores and at the same time supplies Boss products to Kaufmann's and Ginsborg's stores, Hugo Boss is active at the same market and thus competes with its own dealers (dual distribution). Therefore, according to the DCCA and the Court, the illegal exchange of information took place between competitors. The Court noted that although there was also a vertical cooperation between the parties, the information exchanged was predominantly horizontal in nature. A minority of the Competition Appeals Tribunal did not consider that the concerted practice had the object of restricting competition. However, the Court disagreed and stated that the exchanged information was strategic, individualized and future information which was essential for and objectively had the potential to influence Kaufmann and Ginsborg's own pricing strategy for Hugo Boss's products to the detriment of consumers. In general, an undertaking participating in dual distribution should carefully ensure that the undertaking and its distributors do not engage in illegal exchange of commercially sensitive information, for example by implementing an effective and consistent administrative separation between its distribution channels. Read The Maritime and Commercial High Courts judgment here (in Danish): https://lnkd.in/dpnqEWjv Read the DCCA’s press release here (in English): https://lnkd.in/dyqaB4dW #DCCA #antitrust #competition #Article101

Frustrating news for brand owners who are concerned by the potential damage to their brands by look-a-like products, as Aldi is successful in its defence against the trade mark infringement and passing off case brought by Thatchers. Simon Casinader and I look into the judgement in our IP Law Watch article here - https://lnkd.in/enQRCMzc

Happy to report that the 2024 edition of Cernak's Antitrust in Distribution and Franchising is now available for purchase or license in various formats, including at the link. Just over 100 pages to summarize all the #antitrust topics that distributors in the US must know. Topics covered include agreement, MAPs, MFNs, Colgate programs, territorial restrictions, tying, loyalty discounts, and, yes, price discrimination. Perfect for any US counsel, inside or outside, supporting sales/marketing/distribution functions; sophisticated sales execs; and non-US counsel helping their clients distribute in the US. Summaries of classic and recent must-know cases plus footnotes covering latest caselaw. Daniel Sokol https://lnkd.in/e5xcwP4

RETAIL BRANDS: lots to digest in this fascinating "look-a-like" case between Thatchers Cider v Aldi. 👍 yes, it is possible to generate a reputation in unremarkable get up. 👍 yes, it is possible for consumers to make a link between that get up and a "look-a-like" product. 💥 no, that doesn't always lead to trade mark infringement - it depends on the evidence! Overall, a disappointing outcome for retail brands, however, the judge seems to have got this right based on the evidence. Of particular note which may not be obvious from the side-by-side photos is that Aldi's current branding is an evolution of their product's house style. The judge noted "Aldi added lemons and lemon leaves...to communicate the lemon-nature...but the bull's head device, the 'Taurus' branding, and the swoosh all remain intact in accordance with the established house style for the Taurus family of ciders." #trademarks #intellectualproperty #retail

#DidYouKnow #Liquor #stores are subject to strict licensing and regulatory requirements that vary by state and locality. It's crucial to ensure that the buyer and seller are aware of these requirements and that the necessary licenses and permits are in place before closing the escrow. Failure to comply with liquor licensing laws can lead to costly legal issues and even the loss of the business. When you open #escrow you ensure that all this is taken care of in the best way possible. #DidYouKnowThis #didyouknowfacts #socal #socallife #SoCalLiving

🌟 Years ago as a junior lawyer I was told that 70% of disputes cases are decided on the facts and 30% on the law. While both types of disputes are equally intriguing, one’s inner legal nerd always gets extra excited when dealing with pure legal interpretation questions. This case presented that challenge, although the legal question is never that for the client: even legal questions have the impact of seriously impacting the way companies can do business. On this occasion I am extremely glad that we were able to assist in obtaining the right outcome, and proud of the work of our team Vilhelm Schröder Annika Tiitola Aleksiina Markkula and Laura Tyynismaa, which enables our client to continue providing its services as planned. ⚖️ We have seen over the last years an increase in regulatory disputes and have, in addition to this case, gained a lot of experience with administrative disputes. While regulatory disputes cannot be settled in the same manner as a commercial dispute, some characteristics are the same. For starters, one is better off having conducted a thorough legal analysis of the situation before proceeding. With that, we are always glad to assist. We won’t always recommend challenging regulatory decisions but when we do, we base our views on that legal analysis, our experience from previous cases as well as an understanding of administrative procedure gained through court practice and colleagues having clerked in administrative courts. And in cases with specialist subject matter be it energy, financial services, telecommunications or a specific piece of legislation, we work in teams of subject matter and procedural experts. Our subject matter experts in planning and taxation also frequently act for clients before administrative courts and all these experiences are shared to put the best foot forward in each case. 🙏🏻 It goes without saying that we do not have the ability to plead cases to our hearts’ content without clients who trust us with their most challenging cases. So while this may be qualified as a bragging post, I certainly want to extend a very humble thank you for the trust put in us by our clients. We would not exist without your trust in us, and that trust needs to be gained every single time. But for a moment we will pause and toast to this one, and then go back to earning that trust in other cases.

Is this the ''#light at the end of the tunnel'' for New York's #battered & beleaguered legal Cannabis license holders? Will #NY Governor Hochul's latest move close down the thousands of #illicit Cannabis stores that you see literally everywhere in Manhattan? The #cops think so. '''It’s not just the cost of doing business anymore. They’re going to feel this,”” —said Sheriff Anthony Miranda in The New York Times article below. Previously, #unlicensed Cannabis shops could quickly #reopen after being closed, as authorities needed court orders for #permanent closure. Now, the Sheriff’s Office can shut them down for up to a year immediately by declaring them a public #threat—cutting off their income. While some shops evade detection or switch to #delivery, many have ceased operations. Between May 7 and June 3, the city closed 329 shops, seized $10.4 million in products, and issued $23.4 million in fines. However, this action by the cops, has little to no affect on #supply. Potentially many of the 329 #illicit-dispesnary employees & customers are absorbed by the remaining 2571 #stores. Indeed, there are only 62 legally #licensed stores. An illicit market thrives when the legitimate market does not provide for the #consumerdemand. And there's definitely consumer demand for Cannabis in New York. Even with a #limited launch, New York is still expected to be the biggest new legal market. #BDSA predict New York will soon see >$1 billion in taxable sales p.a. Read on in this article below from the NYT—and how #critics claim this approach infringes on constitutional rights by preemptively shutting businesses before a court ruling. #Cannabis

The Law: Commercial Law Title §11-1301 Here is the HyperLink: https://lnkd.in/dSTxZUJG

Michael Tappin KC, sitting as Deputy Judge, has issued an interim judgment in the ongoing IPEC proceedings between Seraphine Limited and Mamarella GmbH. The judgment highlights some of the difficulties one can face when trying to rely on and enforce terms and conditions against a previous partner where terms are not clear, do not reflect the practical ways in which the parties trade with each other, or where there is lack of evidence of terms being in effect between the parties. This serves as a reminder to retailers to have your house in order and to conduct regular reviews of your terms to ensure their relevance, accuracy and applicability. Hannah Finster discusses the judgment, its significance and shares practical takeaways for retailers here: https://lnkd.in/e4VaGGe7 #designs #ip #contractlaw #intellectualproperty