If a penalty decision made by an anti-monopoly law enforcement agency determines that a monopoly violation was constituted, and was not challenged in an administrative litigation within a specified time frame or has been upheld by an effective judgment of the People's Court, there is no requirement for additional evidence to establish the existence of the monopoly conduct in a related civil dispute case. The plaintiff does not need to provide further evidence, unless there is sufficient evidence contradicting it.
In a dispute related to the vertical monopoly agreement between the Appellant Natural Person X and the Appellees A Company and Shanghai B Company, X purchased the vehicle involved in the case from Shanghai B Company in 2014.
In 2016, the Shanghai Price Bureau issued a penalty decision stating that during the distribution of cars in 2014, the marketing department of A Company had reached and enforced a monopoly agreement with Shanghai distributors, limiting the minimum resale price of goods to third parties. The involved parties were ordered to cease the illegal behavior and were fined as a consequence.
X believed he purchased his vehicle during a time when A Company was generally enforcing monopoly prices in Shanghai. He thus sued A Company with the first-instance court, seeking compensation for his loss in the car purchase and reasonable expenses for rights protection. Additionally, X demanded that Shanghai B Company should bear supplementary compensation liability for the above-mentioned losses incurred from car purchase.
The first-instance court held that the evidence in the case could not prove that Shanghai B Company had enforced the monopoly agreement limiting the minimum resale price to third parties, and ruled to dismiss X's legal requests. Dissatisfied with the judgment, X appealed to the Supreme People's Court.
On December 15, 2022, the Supreme People's Court ruled to revoke the original judgment and supported all of X's claims.
In the second instance, the Supreme People's Court held that if the anti-monopoly law enforcement agency's decision confirms a monopoly violation was constituted, and was not challenged in an administrative lawsuit within a specified time frame or has been upheld by an effective judgment of the People's Court, there is no requirement for additional evidence to establish the existence of the monopoly conduct in a related civil dispute case. The plaintiff does not need to provide further evidence for proof unless there is sufficient evidence that contradicts it.
On this basis, after X submitted the penalty decision that had already taken legal effect, he only needed to prove that A Company and Shanghai B Company were the act conductors of the monopoly behavior identified in the penalty decision, and that he suffered losses from the monopoly behavior engaged and enforced by A Company and Shanghai B Company identified in the penalty decision.
Based on relevant evidence retrieved by the first-instance court on which the penalty decision was based, the authorized brand distributor contracts and the "Authorized Brand Distributor Contract (Sales and After-sales)" presented by A Company in the second instance contains the same rights and obligations for the authorized dealer. Additionally, Shanghai B Company was one of the investigated distributors in Shanghai. Based on this, it can be determined that A Company and Shanghai B Company were the conductors of the monopoly behavior identified in the penalty decision.
To demonstrate the losses incurred due to the monopoly behavior engaged and enforced by A Company and Shanghai B Company, X submitted the sales contract that he signed with Shanghai B Company on July 5, 2014, along with the invoice after the transaction was completed.
After a comparison to the penalty facts that led to the penalty decision, it was found that the signing time of the sales contract, the model involved, and the purchase price executed all align with related facts on which the penalty decision of the Shanghai Price Bureau is based, deeming A Company and Shanghai B Company, and other distributors in Shanghai engaged and enforced monopoly agreements limiting the minimum resale price to third parties. In particular, the minimum resale price set by A Company for the launch model was precisely the amount X paid for the vehicle involved.
In summary, based on the evidence in this case, it can be determined that the price paid by X for the vehicle was a clear example of the vertical monopoly agreement engaged and enforced by A Company and Shanghai B Company, limiting the minimum resale price, as determined in the penalty decision. X has fulfilled his burden of proof for losses caused by the monopoly behavior of A Company and Shanghai B Company.
(2020) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No. 1137
If you have any question about the protection of intellectual property rights, please feel free to send us emails. For patent-related matters, please send to info@afdip.com. For trademark/litigation/legal matters, please send to info@bhtdlaw.com.
