Friday, 8 August 2014
The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2014
The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2014 amend the definition of “the emissions publication” in Schedule 7B by referring to the most recent (eighteenth) edition of the Department for Transport publication entitled “In Service Exhaust Emission Standards for Road Vehicles” (ISBN 978-0-9549352-8-3). The publication contains in-use emissions limits that petrol-engined cars and light vans are required to meet for the purpose of MoT and roadside emissions tests. The publication updates information on new models of such vehicles which have come onto the market since the previous amending Regulations (S.I. 2012/1404) came into force on 25th June 2012. It also revises a small amount of data on existing models. (From the Explanatory Note attached to the Regulations.)
Thursday, 7 August 2014
Tesla settles trade mark squatting problem in China
World Intellectual Property Review reports Tesla settles row with Zhan Baosheng over trademark in China (but at what cost?).
The case reinforces what we probably all know - leaving your trade mark unprotected, enabling an opportunist to get in first and register it, can be an expensive mistake. Unfortunately, registering all the trade marks you might need is also expensive. Interesting, however, to note that the squatting problem has moved from the field of domain names (a few pence each) to trade marks (several hundreds of pounds each, at least). And while trade mark laws commonly contain use and good faith requirements, they are not cheap and easy to invoke.
The case reinforces what we probably all know - leaving your trade mark unprotected, enabling an opportunist to get in first and register it, can be an expensive mistake. Unfortunately, registering all the trade marks you might need is also expensive. Interesting, however, to note that the squatting problem has moved from the field of domain names (a few pence each) to trade marks (several hundreds of pounds each, at least). And while trade mark laws commonly contain use and good faith requirements, they are not cheap and easy to invoke.
Wednesday, 6 August 2014
Friday, 1 August 2014
EU: Tighter control of anti-competitive agreements
The European Commission
has tightened up on small agreements that restrict competition. For
years various iterations of its Notice on agreements of minor
importance (referred to by recalcitrant legal Latin-speakers as the
de minimis exception) condoned agreements between parties so small as
to have, effectively, no market power. Their activities would rarely
have an appreciable effect on competition, although the exception
never allowed the cardinal sins of price fixing and market sharing,
the effect of which is always deemed to be appreciable.
The Notice has to be
renewed from time to time, like much competition legislation, because
markets evolve over time. The latest Notice (25 June), or more precisely the
Guidance that comes with it, gives a free pass to agreements between
competitors (actual or potential) whose market share does not exceed
10 per cent, and between non-competitors whose share does not exceed
15 per cent. Nothing new there. How to measure market share remains a
bit of a mystery, explained in further guidance from the Commission:
franchised dealers will always be considered to have a high market
share, because broadly speaking (and of course it is not quite what
the block exemption says) they enjoy fairly exclusive rights in their
locality.
Importantly, though,
the new Notice (and the Guidance) extend the non-exception for
hardcore restrictions to cover all restrictions which have the object
of restricting competition. It will still avail agreements which have
that effect but which were not created with a view to achieving it, a
distinction which might be difficult to draw in practice.
This change makes good
sense, as focusing only on price fixing and market sharing was always
a rather narrow approach. It will still be possible to gain exemption
from the prohibition (a different matter from exception), but the
Commission does make clear in its guidance that it is very unlikely
that an agreement aimed at restricting competition (as opposed to
that merely being an ancilliary effect) will qualify for exemption –
it is unlikely to produce a benefit for consumers, and will
inevitably impose restrictions which are not indispensable to the
achievement of its objectives. Businesses which might previously have
thought they were safe might have to think again.
The Notice applies only
to the application of EU competition rules: but national competition
laws form a seamless part of the EU-wide regulation of
anticompetitive conduct, and the Guidance is expressly aimed at
national competition authorities and courts as well. We have our own,
slightly different, de minimis rule in the UK, but it should no
longer be relied upon for “restrictions by object”.
US: Legal action over warranty reimbursement law dropped
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers has dropped a legal action in Florida in
which it challenged a dealer-friendly law which required them to pay
the same rates for warranty work as retail customers. The suit, filed
six years ago, was in the discovery phase when the court ordered the
Alliance to disclose what it insisted was confidential business
information. It was withdrawn on 2 July, according to Automotive News.
The trade association
promised to continue to oppose state legislation “that is
anti-consumer … [and] anti-competitive and could result in higher
process for vehicles and repairs” - words the meaning of which, as
we know, can differ greatly from one person to the next. In any
event, the Alliance went on, after it filed the suit the legislature
had made a couple of important changes to the law (unspecified in the
reports I have read) so when they were removed from the legal claim
what remained was narrow and confined to interstate commerce – the
Alliance’s implication being that withdrawing the whole suit really
isn’t a big deal. Perhaps the big deal in the story is that any
lawmakers anywhere could pass legislation so generous to dealers!
This earlier story is also of interest: http://politics.heraldtribune.com/2014/04/19/suit-car-repairs-move-bill-public/
ASA Adjudication on Tesco's Hobgoblin beer offer
The Advertising Standards Authority has upheld a complaint about an offer on Hobgoblin beer (an excellent product from the Wychwood brewery). It indicated that the normal price was £4.99 for four cans, and the reduced price was £4.50: in fact it had been offered for more time at £4.00, making the special offer far from special. The £4.50 price also remained after the offer was supposed to have closed: it was not in fact an extension of the offer period but a repricing, but the ASA still didn't like it - consumers would have bought by the advertised date in the expectation that the price would go up again thereafter.
Not a case with specific motor industry connotations - but an interesting indication of the ASA's approach to the problem of dodgy bargain offers, on which the law has been very much relaxed since the days of the Bargain Offers Order.
Not a case with specific motor industry connotations - but an interesting indication of the ASA's approach to the problem of dodgy bargain offers, on which the law has been very much relaxed since the days of the Bargain Offers Order.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)