通过佣金代理商分销–最后可获赔偿！

5 5 月 2018

  • 德国
  • 分销协议

Agreements restricting competition are prohibited as anticompetitive agreements by Article 101 TFEU unless the agreement’s impact on trade or competition is not appreciable (cf. the EU Court of Justice in the Expedia case, C-226/11, judgment of 13 December 2012). Whether an agreement constitutes an appreciable restriction of competition or is in the “safe harbour” can be assessed according to the European Commission’s De Minimis Notice. Accordingly, an agreement is particularly appreciable if its object is to restrict competition. This applies in particular to so-called hardcore restrictions, such as vertical price maintenance (or resale price maintenance = “RPM”).

Regarding a special offer for dietary products, the German Higher Regional Court of Celle surprisingly took a different view and decided that even resale price maintenance could be considered non-appreciable and thus falling outside the ban of anticompetitive business practices under Article 101 TFEU (judgment of 07.04.2016, Case 13 U 124/15 [Kart]). In this case, the manufacturer made a special offer to a group of its customers (pharmacies) with a special purchase discount: once, for a limited period and limited to a maximum quantity. In return, the customers should commit themselves to “present the product clearly… and not fall below a resale price of EUR 15.95“.

The Hanover Regional Court had instead seen the agreement as an unlawful resale price maintenance (judgment of 25 August 2015, Case 18 O 91/15) – and now the German Federal Court confirmed the same: the minimum prices specified here within the advertising campaign appreciably restrict competition and are thus banned as anticompetitive business practice under Article 101 TFEU (judgment of 17 October 2017, Case KZR 59/16). This corresponds to the case law of the EU Court of Justice in the Expedia case (see above) and the German Federal Court with regard to the sales requirement “one bar extra “ (i.e. without extra charge compared to the usual package size) of the Italian confectionery manufacturer Ferrero (judgment of 08.04.2003, Case KZR 3/02) – because the latter explicitly concerns “the scope for price increases resulting from the increased contents of the package” – not, however, the retailer’s decision to set prices freely downwards.

Practical tips

Vertical price fixing is generally prohibited, whereas providing a manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP, also “recommended retail price”) and maximum selling prices are allowed – this is briefly the principle of German and European antitrust law on pricing frameworks. Furthermore, recommended retail prices and maximum selling prices (“MSP”) are subject to the restriction that they ” they do not amount to a fixed or minimum sale price as a result of pressure from, or incentives offered by, any of the parties” (Article 4 lit. a Vertical Block Exemptions Regulation). That means:

  • the manufacturer or supplier may provide guidance,
  • however, the reseller may set his sales prices freely.

Exceptions may apply – in addition to the RPM on the price of books or in the case of specialisation agreements – by way of the efficiency defence under Article 101 (3) TFEU in individual cases, e.g.

  • in the introductory period when launching new products on the market, or
  • in the case of short-term special offers if accompanied by a corresponding increase in efficiency, for example by investing the higher margin into better customer advice, which benefits all customers and Resale Price Maintenance prevents retailers who do not offer the customer advice from free riding (cf. EU Guidelines on Vertical Restraints, para. 225).

Such actions, however, require excellent preparation because manufacturers can only set resale prices for very short periods if they can convincingly demonstrate efficiency gains such as preventing free-riders.

In the case of fixed prices, the competition authorities quickly become sensitive. For example, fines for vertical price maintenance have recently been imposed again in Germany. In this respect, special care must be taken particularly in distribution and sales agreements.

  1. Correspondingly, each company’s sales team should continue following the previous case law on recommended retail prices, maximum selling prices and discount campaigns. Guidance for the practice is provided by

“日默瓦（行李箱品牌名）所有者终止了在欧洲的所有分销协议”——2018年3月9日，德国主要商业报纸“Handelsblatt”的标题。终止原因是：日默瓦——著名高质量的行李箱品牌制造商——其在2011年后，于2018年重新设计它的分销网络：日默瓦的目标是再次提高其质量选择标准，不再将其产品卖给传统的商店，而是提供现代的购物体验。

原则上，制造商可以根据其营销战略和任何变化的需求自由设计和开发其分销系统。相似地，他们可以在原则上自由选择销售中间商（分销商/经销商、特许经营者、代理人等）的数量和名称。他们原则上也可以自由转向选择性分销，目的是使其产品的分销符合某些标准（特别是关于分销的质量），从而也有可能减少分销商的数量。然而，作为例外，分销商可能强迫制造商提供这些产品——即制造商有很大的市场支配力。在这种情况下，与分销商订立合同从而产生交货义务的义务可能源自禁止歧视的规定。（德国《反竞争限制法》第1、20条，1、2款，19项）。

如果制造商重新设计他们的分销网络——就像日默瓦以前和现在所做的那样，那么这个问题就变得特别相关，日默瓦在2011/2012年转向选择性分销（关于选择性分销的优点和可能的分销限制，见Legalmondo文章）。为了重新设计其分销网络，日默瓦终止了以前的分销协议，并提出缔结新的分销协议——根据新的协议，新的分销商承诺以某种方式展示货物，并购买和使用日默瓦的店内系统。日默瓦认为，原分销商的表现与新的商业理念和销售策略不符，这就是双方未能达成缔结一份新协议的原因。于是，分销商提出诉讼，目的是订立一份新的经销商合同，从而交付他的经销商店。

慕尼黑地区法院驳回了这项诉讼请求(2014年9月9日的裁决，编号7249/13 HKO)。不过，慕尼黑高等地区法院确认了这种索赔(2015年9月17日的裁定，注释第U 3886/1/4 Kart)——主张制造商在有关的“高价和高质量手提箱市场”中处于领导地位，或者，相反地，如果分销商具有依赖性，并且因为制造商的手提箱不能被其他同等的手提箱所取代。这种依赖性尤其通过高分销率表现（即制造商提供了大量可比较的分销商）以及独特的设计和相关的高认可价值。现在，联邦法院推翻了这一判决，并将其发回重审(2017年12月12日的裁决，编号：KZR 50/15)。原因：分销商对制造商的产品分类依赖（“Spitzenstellungsabhängigkeit”作为“Sortimentsbedingte Abhängigkeit”的特例）没有得到充分的证明。尽管高分销率通常是决定性的，但在目前这样的质量选择性分销制度中，其意义可能不大。重新设计分销系统的决定性因素：“如果供应商选择在某个时间点转换到一个高质量的选择性分销系统，在之前的一段时间里，与品种相关的依赖关系通常会以较高的分销率来表示。”（第19款）

制造商尤其可以提出两个论点，反对这种所谓的分类相关依赖关系，即

(一)由制造商自行供应其产品的分销商数目远低于提供其产品的分销商总数（即包括通过其他渠道购买该产品的分销商）；及

(二) 分销率将根据那些可与要求进入分配系统和交付的分销商相媲美的分销商确定（第27款)–正如德国联邦法院先前在裁定室内装潢案例（2000年5月9日的裁定，参考KZR 28/98，p. 12）。

Practical conclusions

实际结论

“没有什么比改变更永恒”：在重新设计分销系统时，要仔细考虑是否想要/需要过渡安排–或者最好不考虑过渡安排。一个很好的不考虑过渡安排的理由是：它们可能会使排除不想要的分销商变得更加困难。因此，在日默瓦一案中，慕尼黑的较高地区法院驳回了制造商的反驳意见，即分销商的商业模式“以讨价还价为目标”–辩称，制造商给其他分销商“订立协议后12个月”的时间来满足新的定性标准。

有关定性标准（也是要求/规格），请参阅Legalmondo上的其他文章，特别是关于平台禁令和价格比较禁令的文章，请参见Legalmondo上的文章。

地域封锁是一种歧视性做法，由于客户的国籍或其居住地或营业地，阻止客户（主要是网上客户）从另一欧盟成员国的网站获取和（或）购买产品或服务。

欧盟条例在2018年2月28日颁布的关于解决基于客户国籍、居住地或营业地在国内市场上的不合理的地域封锁和其他形式的歧视的欧盟第2018/302号条例将于2018年12月2日生效。

当前情况

欧盟委员会对欧盟的1万多个电子商务网站进行了“秘密购物”调查。地域封锁指数相当高！63%的网站不允许购物者从另一个欧盟国家购买商品（甚至包括86%的家用电器和79%的电子和计算机硬件）。

另一方面，当电子商务的价值和数量就全球来说，年复一年地大幅增长时，只有50%的欧洲客户从设在另一个欧盟成员国的网上商店购买产品，但这种现象只是在国内范围而非整个欧洲。

2017年6月23日，欧洲理事会要求切实执行数字单一市场战略的所有内容，包括跨界交付、消费者保护和禁止不当地域封锁。

现行法律框架的缺失

欧洲联盟指令（欧盟第2006/123/CE号指令）和TFUE第101条已经解决了基于国籍、地区或住所或营业地的歧视做法。

根据欧盟指令第20(2)条，欧盟成员国必须确保专业人员不因客户的居住地、营业所或国籍而区别对待（客观例外情况除外）。另一方面，关于纵向限制的欧盟竞争法(《欧盟运行条例》第101条和集体豁免条例及其指南)认为，对被动销售的限制是违反欧盟竞争规则的核心限制。然而，这两套规则(欧盟指令和竞争法框架)在实践中似乎并不完全有效。

在这方面，欧盟委员会在最近关于电子商务部门竞争调查的报告中表明，地域封锁尤其在欧洲电子商务部门内得到了大规模使用。

地域封锁条例的目的

地域封锁条例的目的是防止专业人员在处理跨国界电子商务交易时，基于国籍、居住地或客户营业地而实施的直接或间接歧视。

地域封锁条例的范围

新的条例将只适用于企业与最终用户或企业之间的网上销售。

新条例将适用于在欧盟内运作的网站或在欧盟以外运作但向设立在欧盟内的客户提供货物或服务的网站。

电子网站的管理新规是什么？

关于访问网站的问题

根据该条例，企业不得以与互联网用户的国籍、居住地或营业地有关的理由，通过使用技术措施来阻止或限制其进入网络接口。然而，只要客户明确同意，并且仍然可以轻松访问他们原先试图访问的网站版本，企业就有权将客的访问方向改变到他们试图访问的网站之外的另一个网站。

关于网站的销售条款和条件

该规则禁止企业在下列三种情况下，根据客户的国籍、居住地或营业地（特别是他们的IP地址），提供不同的一般条件来取得货物或服务：

提供送货服务的企业将售出的商品送达到另外的欧盟成员国交付（或在企业与客户共同商定的地点收取货物）的；

企业提供的电子化服务，如云、数据存储、主机服务等。（但不提供访问受版权保护的内容的服务，如流媒体或在线游戏服务）；

顾客获得的在各个国家均可运行的商务服务（如汽车租赁和旅馆住宿服务或体育或文化活动的票务服务）。

关于网站上的付款方式

该条例禁止企业以与客户的国籍、居住地或营业地、支付账户所在地或支付服务提供者的设立地有关的理由，对已接受的支付手段适用不同的支付条件（条件是必须符合认证要求，付款交易必须以企业接受的货币进行）。

这项规定对电子零售商有什么影响？

尽管在形式上被排除在该条例范围之外，但供应商与分销商或批发商之间的关系仍将受到该条例的影响，因为根据分销商之间的协议规定，分销商承诺不进行被动销售（例如，阻止或限制进入网站），由于与客户的国籍、居住地或营业地有关的原因“将自动无效”。

因此，地域封锁条例对分销商的影响是双重的：第一，在与客户（最终用户或用户企业）的关系中产生直接影响；第二，在其根据独家分销协议所承担的义务方面产生间接影响。

地域封锁条例必须与现行竞争法框架相协调，特别是与制定适用于网上销售的具体规则的纵向限制指导方针相协调。网上销售被比作被动销售。指导方针中提到4个实践中为了间接保证地方保护主义，在供应商和独家分销商同意的情况下被禁止的例子：

独家经销商应阻止另一地区的客户访问其网站，或自动将其转到供应商或其他经销商的网站，

如果买方的信用卡数据显示买方不是独家经销商的专有区域，独家经销商应终止网上销售。

限制独家分销商通过互联网销售的份额（但合同可规定按绝对值计算的最低线下目标，并规定与离线销售相比，网上销售保持一致）。

独家分销商对在互联网上销售的货物支付的价格，应高于对准备在离线销售的货物支付的价格。

制造商将必须决定是采用一个独一无二的欧洲门户网站报价还是多个地方商业报价，众所周知，每个范畴的客户端是有可能存在价格差异的。

事实上，新规定并没有强制电子零售商协调其价格政策，它们只是必须允许欧盟消费者自由和容易地访问其网站的任何版本。同样，该条例并没有规定电子零售商必须将产品运往欧洲各地，而只是允许欧盟消费者从他们想要的任何网站购买商品，并在必要时自行安排发货。

最后，在更为契约性的层面上，尚不十分清楚新的地域封锁规则如何直接或间接地影响适用于消费者合同的冲突法规则，根据罗马第1号规定(Rome I Regulation)，特别是在允许消费者在本网站所在国的外国网站上购买产品时（这意味着在消费者所在国无特定交货制度已建立。）

因此，B2C网站的一般条款和条件需要在营销和法律两方面进行审查和调整。

Once convinced of the utility of mediation as a method of resolving conflicts between franchisor and franchisee and taken the decision to include a clause in the contracts that provides for it, the last step would be what elements should be taken into account when drafting it.

  1. The previous negotiation. It seems advisable that both parties grant themselves the possibility of trying to solve the problem with a previous formal negotiation. Mediation does not exclude the previous attempt made by the interested parties or their lawyers; however, it seems advisable to contractually provide a suitable end according to the circumstances. Experience shows that lengthening this phase too long may result in the conflict becoming more complicated and even more difficult to approach mediation.
  2. The clause may also provide for the place where the mediation will take place. Again at this point the parties are free. It is convenient that this is accurate indicating the concrete city.
  3. The language in which the mediation will be developed is the a faculty of the parties. There will be no difficulty in mediations in which both parties use the same language, but it is very convenient in contracts with parties that have different languages, or that belong to regions or countries with different co-official languages. The drafting or signing of the contract in a specific language does not presuppose that this must be the language of the mediation. It is an element to be taken into account also when requesting a mediator who can use that language in the chosen mediation institution.
  4. The procedure can also be decided by the parties. In particular, the number of sessions, the maximum expected duration, the participation of advisors, etc. Keep in mind that the greater or lesser regulation will allow to avoid future conflicts in this respect, although it will also imply a greater limit to the freedom of the parties that, nevertheless, will remain free to modify the agreement by mutual consent.
  5. The term of the mediation can also be contemplated. This would allow, for example, to prevent mediation from being extended only for purely procedural strategic purposes or to gather information from the other party before starting a procedure, etc. The professional mediators, however, are able to identify these manoeuvres, also having the power to put an end to mediation in those cases.
  6. Choosing the mediator or the mediation institution is an important choice. The parties can agree on who will be their mediator, indicate in the contract the elements to choose it, or submit directly to a Mediation Institution so that it is the one who designates it according to its own rules. These decisions can be alternatives (that is, that the parties agree on the mediator and, in case of lack of agreement, submit to an institution that names it), or they can be unique. The designation of an Institution requires that it has a sufficient guarantee of stability (avoid designating short-term institutions or without much future guarantee), with a sufficient panel of mediators depending on the characteristics of the mediation (language, competence, experience) and that allows the necessary flexibility for its operation.
  7. Finally, it is convenient that the clause includes an alternative way in case the mediation does not succeed either because the parties do not reach an agreement, or because they withdraw from the mediation. It is important to recall that mediation does not close the doors to the conflict be resolved by recourse to ordinary jurisdiction or arbitration. And in terms of specialized arbitration in distribution contracts, the IDArb (https://www.idiproject.com/content/idarb-idi-arbitration-project) is an excellent option.

On the topic of the importance of Mediation in Distribution Agreements, you can check out the recording our webinar “Mediation in International Conflicts”

It is not only since the days of the Internet that brand manufacturers have had to contend with the fact that original products are offered outside of their authorized sales channels. The problem has since been significantly exacerbated, however. The relevant products are also referred to as gray market products.

The internal market of the European Economic Area makes it possible to exploit certain price advantages – that is, purchasing in one Member State at a price that is lower than in other Member States and selling to the end customer while passing on (or not passing on) the purchasing advantage. This is made possible by the “exhaustion regime”, according to which the sale of products, which at one time were made available in the European Economic Area with the copyright holder’s consent, cannot be prohibited.

Brand manufacturers’ attempts to counter this issue by means of distribution systems may be an effective instrument, but only if all distribution partners adhere to it. If a distribution partner pulls out, trademark owners (at least in Germany) are initially required to contact their distribution partner who is acting contrary to the contract. That is difficult when the distribution channel of the products in question cannot be traced by security systems (such as SKU numbers) beyond any doubt. A right to information against a third party generally does not exist. Thus, neither the distribution system itself nor the suspicion that the products are not of EU origin may be used easily to justify a right to information in selective or exclusive distribution. The Federal Court of Justice, for example, sees no reason to deviate from the exhaustion doctrine when implementing a selective distribution system (Federal Court of Justice, 1 ZR 63/04). In the case of a selective or exclusive distribution system (Federal Court of Justice, I AR 52/10), the burden of proof is reversed. Accordingly, it is initially the brand manufacturer itself that is responsible for providing evidence for its allegation of a non-EU product.

Exceptions are only made where, for example, the SKU numbers were modified, since this makes clarification difficult. In such cases, trademark infringement and at the same time breach of competition law are given by way of exception and it is not possible for the dealer to invoke exhaustion (Federal Court of Justice I ZR 1/98). The deliberate misleading of the authorized dealer by a third party to breach the contract is also recognized as an exception (Federal Court of Justice I ZR 96/04), which regularly is not verifiable, however.

By the way, the sensational December 2017 Coty decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU C-230/16) (here you can find more: https://www.legalmondo.com/2017/12/eu-court-justice-allows-online-sales-restrictions-coty-case/) has not changed this basic presumption, either. In its Coty decision, the CJEU in the end confirms the exhaustion priority also and particularly for luxury products by referring to existing case law (specifically ECJ C-59/08).

————————————-

Need help with your International Distribution Contracts?

Click the button below to Receive Support from our Expert Lawyers thanks to the Online Help Desk

————————————-

There are, however, more options available. As confirmed by the ECJ (ECJ, C-337/95), an exemption from the exhaustion principle already applies when the type of sale may be designed to damage the reputation of the trademark. In the Court’s opinion, this applies to the sale of products at discounters, if such a sale damages the reputation of the products to an extent that their luxurious image and quality is called into question (ECJ, C-59/08). This applies, on the one hand, if other products are sold in the immediate “neighborhood” to the branded product, without meeting the same quality requirements (ECJ, C-337/95) or if the advertising methods are unsuitable (ECJ, C-63/97). Hamburg Regional Court, for example, found that the use of photographs that are unsuitable and detrimental to the luxury image of a brand justifies a prohibition claim (at least with respect to use of the photos) (Hamburg Regional Court, 315 O 339/13). The Federal Court of Justice saw improper handling of the brand in an erroneous and negligent labeling of products (Federal Court of Justice, I ZR 72/11).

Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court has now also followed these CJEU guidelines by prohibiting the sale of high-priced cosmetic products, which are distributed in the framework of a strictly regulated selective distribution system, at a discounter (Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court, I-20 U 113/17). The Court explicitly referenced the CJEU, by repeating its principles and then applying them in the case of the discounter:

“The permanent and extensive sale of the cosmetic products at issue on the online platform www…de is suitable to significantly impair the image of the application brands. The way in which the products are presented there draws the application brands into the mundane and ordinary. As the relevant public is used to from the multitude of Respondent’s conventional self-service department stores, the offering on www…de of everyday products is frequently dominated in the form of particularly low priced own labels, such as Z.’s own label “O.” Respondent’s motto applies here as well. The assortment ranges from food to electronics, household goods, clothing to cosmetics. Since Respondent’s online presence was merged with that of the company “B” that it had acquired, it is moreover not only Respondent that offers its goods for sale on the platform, but also third parties may market goods via the online platform. The portal is designed to be functional and oriented toward products that are on sale. Customers are able to collect PAYBACK points with each purchase and may make use of financing. In some cases, goods are advertised at “instead of prices” and red letters indicate in attention-getting manner what percentage customers will save compared to the original prices. Product consultation does not take place.”

By offering luxury products at random alongside every-day and mass products without any kind of prominent presentation and becoming affordable through financing options, the products would be placed on a level with the other items offered, thereby significantly affecting the prestige value of the products. For this reason, Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court pronounced a complete ban on distribution for the online platform and the department stores.

Conclusion:

Even if the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court’s decision is not to be considered revolutionary in light of existing CJEU case law, it certainly ensures some impetus in proceeding against gray market dealers, since national courts are now no longer facing the “uncomfortable” hurdle of applying CJEU case law, but rather in the customary fairway of national case law. In principle, Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court case law may not be understood as a blank check, however. Even Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court did not allow a general ban, but rather weighed individually whether the distribution in its concrete form could be prohibited. In the future, it will also be important to work out what in particular will determine the extent of the ban.

The author of this post is Ilja Czernik.

公司可以通过分公司、子公司或电子商务–或间接–通过代理商、分销商、特许经营商或佣金代理商在全球直接销售他们的产品。

德国联邦法院现在首次裁定，佣金代理商也可在合同终止时要求赔偿(2016年7月21日的决定，参考第I ZR 229/15号)。

什么是佣金代理商？

佣金代理商是自营商他们经常受委托以自己的名义为另一家公司（即供应商）的帐户订立交易的任务。它们不同于分销商，因为分销商自己买卖产品，因此本身就承担分销风险（详见Legalmondo中关于德国分销协议的文章和关于“德国”分销商赔款–如何避免的文章）。

针对佣金代理商的新规定是什么？

联邦法院明确–按照为分销商解决问题的判例法–如果符合两个类比要求，也就是如果佣金代理商符合下列条件，则可在合同终止时要求赔偿。

（一）作为商业代理被纳入供应商的销售组织；以及

（二）必须向供应商提供客户数据，使供应商在合约终止后，能够继续从与这些客户的业务中获得实质利益。

关于第二项要求(提供客户数据)，联邦法院指出先决条件是–作为一般规则-符合，因为成文法规定佣金代理商必须提供客户数据(sec.384 para.2 德国商法典）。因此，没有任何具体的合同义务，客户根据法律“属于”供应商。

如果分销涉及“匿名大众业务”（即客户支付现金，销售中介由于客户关系管理措施而不知道客户名称），佣金代理商可能无法提供相应的客户数据。在这种情况下，根据联邦法院，如果佣金代理商提供了“有关销售过程本身”的数据，则应足以使供应商能够估计哪些类型的货物有需求（这与汽车、时装或电子产品等高质量产品的分销要求大不相同）。

双方的义务可以让第三方承办吗？

是的，提供客户数据的义务可以让第三方承办。然而，这种做法目前不会100%安全地将索赔请求排除在外，因为联邦法院没有明确规定，如果供应商仅有实际机会使用客户数据，佣金代理商是否也可以要求赔偿。因此，为了安全起见，还必须排除使用数据的机会（见下面的“实用信息”）。

特许经营商呢？

关于特许经营商作为销售中介人的问题，联邦法院确认，仅仅是顾客的事实连续性不足以导致赔偿要求(从而确认了反对2015年2月5日，对传统烘焙连锁“Kamps”的特许经营人所作的决定。第VII ZR 315/13号）。

实用贴士

保护自营商业代理人的条款也可同样适用于佣金代理商。

关于根据德国法律订立的现存协议：如果符合两项类似要求，终止时的赔偿要求很有可能得到满足。

关于根据德国法律订立的将来的协议，则如下：

  • 一般来说，通过排除佣金代理商提供客户数据的义务，可以避免赔偿要求。但是，应该明确地规定这种排除。或者，为了保险起见，除此之外，供应商可以强制自己在与佣金代理商的合同终止时锁定或删除客户数据。
  • 或者，可以通过选择另外的法律和管辖权来避免赔偿权（考虑到“德国”赔偿要求仍可作为《罗马第一条例》第9条意义上的压倒一切的约束性条款而适用的风险）。
  • 最后，如果佣金代理商在欧洲经济区以外行事，则可通过简单的弃权证书排除赔偿要求（根据类似的申请《德国商法典》92c)。

We have seen in a previous post the advantages of mediation as an alternative dispute resolution method in franchise agreements. From there, what recommendations could we give to make better use of mediation? Although we will have to adapt them to each specific case, the following points could be very useful:

  1. Specifically foresee in the contract a mediation clause as an alternative dispute resolution method. Although the franchisee and franchisor can agree to mediate once the conflict arises without having reflected it in the contract, it will surely be more complicated to do so when both have already initiated the discrepancies. It is preferable, therefore, to do it before: it places the parties in a better predisposition, they will be able to choose the procedure in a better way, as well as the institution, the mediator, the formalities, etc.
  2. If the parties have agreed on a mediation agreement, this may be initiated at the request of only one of them, without having to re-reach an agreement.
  3. The mediation clause is also recommended, because once an application for the initiation of mediation has been agreed upon, the limitations period of the legal actions will be suspended until the termination of the mediation.
  4. By virtue of this agreement and having initiated the mediation, the courts will not be able to hear such controversies during the time in which the mediation takes place, provided that the interested party invokes it.
  5. In the clause, it is convenient to foresee some elements, such as what issues may be the subject of mediation (all or only some of them), the need or not of a previous negotiation, adequate deadlines to avoid that this procedure can be used to delay other ways, the applicable law to mediation and to the agreement reached with it, the competent jurisdiction for the adoption of precautionary measures, where appropriate, or the jurisdiction or arbitration to settle the dispute in case of failure of mediation.
  6. It is true that one of the principles of mediation is its voluntary nature. However, the existence of the clause and being obliged to attend at least one informative session before initiating any judicial procedure can convince of its advantages even the most reticent party.
  7. Include the mediation as an alternative dispute resolution method within the pre-contractual information that the franchisor must deliver to potential franchisees. Although the Spanish norm does not seem to expressly demand that reference be made, this seems an optimal moment to show transparency and the will to solve possible problems in an agile manner. It also predisposes the good understanding, cooperation and good faith of the franchised brand before the beginning of relations.
  8. Appropriately select the mediation institution to which to refer in case of conflict or foreseeing the best way to choose the most appropriate mediator. Currently there are many institutions or professionals that offer guarantees of impartiality. It may be relevant that it is a mediator with specific training, who facilitates the communication and confidence of the parties and, insofar as possible, who can fully understand the nature of the franchise. There are institutions in Spain such as the Signum Foundation (http://fundacionsignum.org/) or MediaICAM of the Madrid Bar Association (https://mediacion.icam.es) that can be good choices.

On the topic of the importance of Mediation in Distribution Agreements, you can check out the recording our webinar “Mediation in International Conflicts”

It is recommended that franchise agreements clearly foresee how to solve and deal with potential conflicts. The relationship between franchisor and franchisee may have some difficulty due, for example, to the absence of specific regulation of its content (at least in Spain) and to the fact that its elements are contained in different pieces of legislation. What I will say in these posts could also be useful for other distribution contracts, or in general collaboration agreements, although I will focus on franchising due to its special characteristics.

Conflicts between franchisees and franchisors can cover multiple legal and commercial aspects: product supplies, brands, know-how, exclusivity and territory, non-competition, promotion and advertising, sales through the Internet … And all this, in a context in which, frequently, both parties want to maintain their collaboration and good relations.

How to face, then, these potential conflicts? A first step is usually the direct negotiation between the parties and their advisers who have the task of being useful to them in this purpose. But this does not always end with a positive result. And the almost natural step if this happens is usually the beginning of a judicial procedure often preceded by a series of previous formal requirements.

However, there is a way that, taking into account the characteristic elements of the franchise contract and the nature of possible conflicts, can be an excellent and privileged alternative method to solve them: mediation. Let’s see why:

  1. In mediation there is no third party that imposes its decision on the conflict. The franchisor and the franchisee solve it by themselves with the help of a professional (the mediator) who, in a neutral and independent way, uses their skills and specifically acquired knowledge (help in identifying the interests of the parties, active listening, legitimacy …) so that both can reach a consensus. The mediator does not advise (the parties can go with their respective advisors), it does not decide or sentence, but it helps that the parties find the solution that most satisfies both: they better than anyone else know the business, its evolution, the aspects perhaps not foreseen in the contract and the future that they want for themselves.
  2. Mediation is a harmonized mode of dispute resolution in the European Union through the Directive on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters. This allows the parties in different Member States to be familiar with it, therefore it is possible to foresee a unified system in contracts with international parties, and it will be easier to enforce the agreements reached.
  3. Mediation allows, therefore, to satisfy both parties better than the judicial alternative and with more creative solutions that a judge will never be able to apply. Unlike a legal proceeding where one usually wins and another loses, mediation can bring together the interests of franchisees and franchisors and, in this way, both obtain a better response. It allows a less belligerent and more friendly format that can be very useful since in many cases the disputes do not have too much entity to go to court, or refer to non-essential aspects of the relationship, or can be addressed from more global perspectives or with references to objective parameters. In addition, frequently, franchisees and franchisors want to continue maintaining their commercial relationship and, through mediation, resolved the conflict, this will be possible (unthinkable, however, if they had initiated a judicial confrontation).
  4. Mediation is, in principle, voluntary. At any time, the parties can abandon it even in those Member States or conflicts for which it may be mandatory to attend at least to the information session.
  5. It is a method that easily adapts to the characteristics of both parties: it is very flexible with the formalities, and the franchisor and the franchisee are who, with the help of the mediator, design a large part of the procedure to arrive at a solution being able to control its evolution. It also allows a solution that is much more adapted to their specific situation, provides more imaginative solution ideas, allows better dialogue, maintains the relationship, distinguishes facts from opinions or judgments, and allows the parties to return to their business saving energies that would otherwise be devoted to conflict management.
  6. It is a faster procedure than a trial, with a cost that can be assumed and controlled in advance.
  7. Mediation is confidential, so the publicity of the conflict is reduced, avoiding reputation costs or by extending to the rest of the network. What is treated in a mediation procedure cannot be disclosed even in a subsequent judicial proceeding.
  8. Both parties can arrive at a solution that will be binding for them. In addition, even if no agreement is reached, with the mediation the parties are in a better position to continue the relationship and resolve their problems: they have been able to present their points of view, they have been heard and have listened, they have opened dialogue channels, they have been able to show greater flexibility and, in short, they have improved their relations as a requirement to end the conflict and reach agreements.
  9. The degree of compliance with conflicts resolved through mediation is much higher than those imposed by a judge since the agreements are more satisfactory for them and it has been the parties themselves who have decided what to do.
  10. And finally, if the mediation has not worked, the possibility of claiming in the courts remains open.

Benedikt Rohrssen

业务领域

  • 代理中介
  • 分销协议
  • 电子商务
  • 特许经营
  • 投资
联系方式 Benedikt

写信给 Benedikt





    阅读 Legalmondo 的隐私政策
    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

    Mediation and franchise agreements – best practices

    3 5 月 2018

    • 西班牙
    • 分销协议
    • 特许经营

    Agreements restricting competition are prohibited as anticompetitive agreements by Article 101 TFEU unless the agreement’s impact on trade or competition is not appreciable (cf. the EU Court of Justice in the Expedia case, C-226/11, judgment of 13 December 2012). Whether an agreement constitutes an appreciable restriction of competition or is in the “safe harbour” can be assessed according to the European Commission’s De Minimis Notice. Accordingly, an agreement is particularly appreciable if its object is to restrict competition. This applies in particular to so-called hardcore restrictions, such as vertical price maintenance (or resale price maintenance = “RPM”).

    Regarding a special offer for dietary products, the German Higher Regional Court of Celle surprisingly took a different view and decided that even resale price maintenance could be considered non-appreciable and thus falling outside the ban of anticompetitive business practices under Article 101 TFEU (judgment of 07.04.2016, Case 13 U 124/15 [Kart]). In this case, the manufacturer made a special offer to a group of its customers (pharmacies) with a special purchase discount: once, for a limited period and limited to a maximum quantity. In return, the customers should commit themselves to “present the product clearly… and not fall below a resale price of EUR 15.95“.

    The Hanover Regional Court had instead seen the agreement as an unlawful resale price maintenance (judgment of 25 August 2015, Case 18 O 91/15) – and now the German Federal Court confirmed the same: the minimum prices specified here within the advertising campaign appreciably restrict competition and are thus banned as anticompetitive business practice under Article 101 TFEU (judgment of 17 October 2017, Case KZR 59/16). This corresponds to the case law of the EU Court of Justice in the Expedia case (see above) and the German Federal Court with regard to the sales requirement “one bar extra “ (i.e. without extra charge compared to the usual package size) of the Italian confectionery manufacturer Ferrero (judgment of 08.04.2003, Case KZR 3/02) – because the latter explicitly concerns “the scope for price increases resulting from the increased contents of the package” – not, however, the retailer’s decision to set prices freely downwards.

    Practical tips

    Vertical price fixing is generally prohibited, whereas providing a manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP, also “recommended retail price”) and maximum selling prices are allowed – this is briefly the principle of German and European antitrust law on pricing frameworks. Furthermore, recommended retail prices and maximum selling prices (“MSP”) are subject to the restriction that they ” they do not amount to a fixed or minimum sale price as a result of pressure from, or incentives offered by, any of the parties” (Article 4 lit. a Vertical Block Exemptions Regulation). That means:

    • the manufacturer or supplier may provide guidance,
    • however, the reseller may set his sales prices freely.

    Exceptions may apply – in addition to the RPM on the price of books or in the case of specialisation agreements – by way of the efficiency defence under Article 101 (3) TFEU in individual cases, e.g.

    • in the introductory period when launching new products on the market, or
    • in the case of short-term special offers if accompanied by a corresponding increase in efficiency, for example by investing the higher margin into better customer advice, which benefits all customers and Resale Price Maintenance prevents retailers who do not offer the customer advice from free riding (cf. EU Guidelines on Vertical Restraints, para. 225).

    Such actions, however, require excellent preparation because manufacturers can only set resale prices for very short periods if they can convincingly demonstrate efficiency gains such as preventing free-riders.

    In the case of fixed prices, the competition authorities quickly become sensitive. For example, fines for vertical price maintenance have recently been imposed again in Germany. In this respect, special care must be taken particularly in distribution and sales agreements.

    1. Correspondingly, each company’s sales team should continue following the previous case law on recommended retail prices, maximum selling prices and discount campaigns. Guidance for the practice is provided by

    “日默瓦（行李箱品牌名）所有者终止了在欧洲的所有分销协议”——2018年3月9日，德国主要商业报纸“Handelsblatt”的标题。终止原因是：日默瓦——著名高质量的行李箱品牌制造商——其在2011年后，于2018年重新设计它的分销网络：日默瓦的目标是再次提高其质量选择标准，不再将其产品卖给传统的商店，而是提供现代的购物体验。

    原则上，制造商可以根据其营销战略和任何变化的需求自由设计和开发其分销系统。相似地，他们可以在原则上自由选择销售中间商（分销商/经销商、特许经营者、代理人等）的数量和名称。他们原则上也可以自由转向选择性分销，目的是使其产品的分销符合某些标准（特别是关于分销的质量），从而也有可能减少分销商的数量。然而，作为例外，分销商可能强迫制造商提供这些产品——即制造商有很大的市场支配力。在这种情况下，与分销商订立合同从而产生交货义务的义务可能源自禁止歧视的规定。（德国《反竞争限制法》第1、20条，1、2款，19项）。

    如果制造商重新设计他们的分销网络——就像日默瓦以前和现在所做的那样，那么这个问题就变得特别相关，日默瓦在2011/2012年转向选择性分销（关于选择性分销的优点和可能的分销限制，见Legalmondo文章）。为了重新设计其分销网络，日默瓦终止了以前的分销协议，并提出缔结新的分销协议——根据新的协议，新的分销商承诺以某种方式展示货物，并购买和使用日默瓦的店内系统。日默瓦认为，原分销商的表现与新的商业理念和销售策略不符，这就是双方未能达成缔结一份新协议的原因。于是，分销商提出诉讼，目的是订立一份新的经销商合同，从而交付他的经销商店。

    慕尼黑地区法院驳回了这项诉讼请求(2014年9月9日的裁决，编号7249/13 HKO)。不过，慕尼黑高等地区法院确认了这种索赔(2015年9月17日的裁定，注释第U 3886/1/4 Kart)——主张制造商在有关的“高价和高质量手提箱市场”中处于领导地位，或者，相反地，如果分销商具有依赖性，并且因为制造商的手提箱不能被其他同等的手提箱所取代。这种依赖性尤其通过高分销率表现（即制造商提供了大量可比较的分销商）以及独特的设计和相关的高认可价值。现在，联邦法院推翻了这一判决，并将其发回重审(2017年12月12日的裁决，编号：KZR 50/15)。原因：分销商对制造商的产品分类依赖（“Spitzenstellungsabhängigkeit”作为“Sortimentsbedingte Abhängigkeit”的特例）没有得到充分的证明。尽管高分销率通常是决定性的，但在目前这样的质量选择性分销制度中，其意义可能不大。重新设计分销系统的决定性因素：“如果供应商选择在某个时间点转换到一个高质量的选择性分销系统，在之前的一段时间里，与品种相关的依赖关系通常会以较高的分销率来表示。”（第19款）

    制造商尤其可以提出两个论点，反对这种所谓的分类相关依赖关系，即

    (一)由制造商自行供应其产品的分销商数目远低于提供其产品的分销商总数（即包括通过其他渠道购买该产品的分销商）；及

    (二) 分销率将根据那些可与要求进入分配系统和交付的分销商相媲美的分销商确定（第27款)–正如德国联邦法院先前在裁定室内装潢案例（2000年5月9日的裁定，参考KZR 28/98，p. 12）。

    Practical conclusions

    实际结论

    “没有什么比改变更永恒”：在重新设计分销系统时，要仔细考虑是否想要/需要过渡安排–或者最好不考虑过渡安排。一个很好的不考虑过渡安排的理由是：它们可能会使排除不想要的分销商变得更加困难。因此，在日默瓦一案中，慕尼黑的较高地区法院驳回了制造商的反驳意见，即分销商的商业模式“以讨价还价为目标”–辩称，制造商给其他分销商“订立协议后12个月”的时间来满足新的定性标准。

    有关定性标准（也是要求/规格），请参阅Legalmondo上的其他文章，特别是关于平台禁令和价格比较禁令的文章，请参见Legalmondo上的文章。

    地域封锁是一种歧视性做法，由于客户的国籍或其居住地或营业地，阻止客户（主要是网上客户）从另一欧盟成员国的网站获取和（或）购买产品或服务。

    欧盟条例在2018年2月28日颁布的关于解决基于客户国籍、居住地或营业地在国内市场上的不合理的地域封锁和其他形式的歧视的欧盟第2018/302号条例将于2018年12月2日生效。

    当前情况

    欧盟委员会对欧盟的1万多个电子商务网站进行了“秘密购物”调查。地域封锁指数相当高！63%的网站不允许购物者从另一个欧盟国家购买商品（甚至包括86%的家用电器和79%的电子和计算机硬件）。

    另一方面，当电子商务的价值和数量就全球来说，年复一年地大幅增长时，只有50%的欧洲客户从设在另一个欧盟成员国的网上商店购买产品，但这种现象只是在国内范围而非整个欧洲。

    2017年6月23日，欧洲理事会要求切实执行数字单一市场战略的所有内容，包括跨界交付、消费者保护和禁止不当地域封锁。

    现行法律框架的缺失

    欧洲联盟指令（欧盟第2006/123/CE号指令）和TFUE第101条已经解决了基于国籍、地区或住所或营业地的歧视做法。

    根据欧盟指令第20(2)条，欧盟成员国必须确保专业人员不因客户的居住地、营业所或国籍而区别对待（客观例外情况除外）。另一方面，关于纵向限制的欧盟竞争法(《欧盟运行条例》第101条和集体豁免条例及其指南)认为，对被动销售的限制是违反欧盟竞争规则的核心限制。然而，这两套规则(欧盟指令和竞争法框架)在实践中似乎并不完全有效。

    在这方面，欧盟委员会在最近关于电子商务部门竞争调查的报告中表明，地域封锁尤其在欧洲电子商务部门内得到了大规模使用。

    地域封锁条例的目的

    地域封锁条例的目的是防止专业人员在处理跨国界电子商务交易时，基于国籍、居住地或客户营业地而实施的直接或间接歧视。

    地域封锁条例的范围

    新的条例将只适用于企业与最终用户或企业之间的网上销售。

    新条例将适用于在欧盟内运作的网站或在欧盟以外运作但向设立在欧盟内的客户提供货物或服务的网站。

    电子网站的管理新规是什么？

    关于访问网站的问题

    根据该条例，企业不得以与互联网用户的国籍、居住地或营业地有关的理由，通过使用技术措施来阻止或限制其进入网络接口。然而，只要客户明确同意，并且仍然可以轻松访问他们原先试图访问的网站版本，企业就有权将客的访问方向改变到他们试图访问的网站之外的另一个网站。

    关于网站的销售条款和条件

    该规则禁止企业在下列三种情况下，根据客户的国籍、居住地或营业地（特别是他们的IP地址），提供不同的一般条件来取得货物或服务：

    提供送货服务的企业将售出的商品送达到另外的欧盟成员国交付（或在企业与客户共同商定的地点收取货物）的；

    企业提供的电子化服务，如云、数据存储、主机服务等。（但不提供访问受版权保护的内容的服务，如流媒体或在线游戏服务）；

    顾客获得的在各个国家均可运行的商务服务（如汽车租赁和旅馆住宿服务或体育或文化活动的票务服务）。

    关于网站上的付款方式

    该条例禁止企业以与客户的国籍、居住地或营业地、支付账户所在地或支付服务提供者的设立地有关的理由，对已接受的支付手段适用不同的支付条件（条件是必须符合认证要求，付款交易必须以企业接受的货币进行）。

    这项规定对电子零售商有什么影响？

    尽管在形式上被排除在该条例范围之外，但供应商与分销商或批发商之间的关系仍将受到该条例的影响，因为根据分销商之间的协议规定，分销商承诺不进行被动销售（例如，阻止或限制进入网站），由于与客户的国籍、居住地或营业地有关的原因“将自动无效”。

    因此，地域封锁条例对分销商的影响是双重的：第一，在与客户（最终用户或用户企业）的关系中产生直接影响；第二，在其根据独家分销协议所承担的义务方面产生间接影响。

    地域封锁条例必须与现行竞争法框架相协调，特别是与制定适用于网上销售的具体规则的纵向限制指导方针相协调。网上销售被比作被动销售。指导方针中提到4个实践中为了间接保证地方保护主义，在供应商和独家分销商同意的情况下被禁止的例子：

    独家经销商应阻止另一地区的客户访问其网站，或自动将其转到供应商或其他经销商的网站，

    如果买方的信用卡数据显示买方不是独家经销商的专有区域，独家经销商应终止网上销售。

    限制独家分销商通过互联网销售的份额（但合同可规定按绝对值计算的最低线下目标，并规定与离线销售相比，网上销售保持一致）。

    独家分销商对在互联网上销售的货物支付的价格，应高于对准备在离线销售的货物支付的价格。

    制造商将必须决定是采用一个独一无二的欧洲门户网站报价还是多个地方商业报价，众所周知，每个范畴的客户端是有可能存在价格差异的。

    事实上，新规定并没有强制电子零售商协调其价格政策，它们只是必须允许欧盟消费者自由和容易地访问其网站的任何版本。同样，该条例并没有规定电子零售商必须将产品运往欧洲各地，而只是允许欧盟消费者从他们想要的任何网站购买商品，并在必要时自行安排发货。

    最后，在更为契约性的层面上，尚不十分清楚新的地域封锁规则如何直接或间接地影响适用于消费者合同的冲突法规则，根据罗马第1号规定(Rome I Regulation)，特别是在允许消费者在本网站所在国的外国网站上购买产品时（这意味着在消费者所在国无特定交货制度已建立。）

    因此，B2C网站的一般条款和条件需要在营销和法律两方面进行审查和调整。

    Once convinced of the utility of mediation as a method of resolving conflicts between franchisor and franchisee and taken the decision to include a clause in the contracts that provides for it, the last step would be what elements should be taken into account when drafting it.

    1. The previous negotiation. It seems advisable that both parties grant themselves the possibility of trying to solve the problem with a previous formal negotiation. Mediation does not exclude the previous attempt made by the interested parties or their lawyers; however, it seems advisable to contractually provide a suitable end according to the circumstances. Experience shows that lengthening this phase too long may result in the conflict becoming more complicated and even more difficult to approach mediation.
    2. The clause may also provide for the place where the mediation will take place. Again at this point the parties are free. It is convenient that this is accurate indicating the concrete city.
    3. The language in which the mediation will be developed is the a faculty of the parties. There will be no difficulty in mediations in which both parties use the same language, but it is very convenient in contracts with parties that have different languages, or that belong to regions or countries with different co-official languages. The drafting or signing of the contract in a specific language does not presuppose that this must be the language of the mediation. It is an element to be taken into account also when requesting a mediator who can use that language in the chosen mediation institution.
    4. The procedure can also be decided by the parties. In particular, the number of sessions, the maximum expected duration, the participation of advisors, etc. Keep in mind that the greater or lesser regulation will allow to avoid future conflicts in this respect, although it will also imply a greater limit to the freedom of the parties that, nevertheless, will remain free to modify the agreement by mutual consent.
    5. The term of the mediation can also be contemplated. This would allow, for example, to prevent mediation from being extended only for purely procedural strategic purposes or to gather information from the other party before starting a procedure, etc. The professional mediators, however, are able to identify these manoeuvres, also having the power to put an end to mediation in those cases.
    6. Choosing the mediator or the mediation institution is an important choice. The parties can agree on who will be their mediator, indicate in the contract the elements to choose it, or submit directly to a Mediation Institution so that it is the one who designates it according to its own rules. These decisions can be alternatives (that is, that the parties agree on the mediator and, in case of lack of agreement, submit to an institution that names it), or they can be unique. The designation of an Institution requires that it has a sufficient guarantee of stability (avoid designating short-term institutions or without much future guarantee), with a sufficient panel of mediators depending on the characteristics of the mediation (language, competence, experience) and that allows the necessary flexibility for its operation.
    7. Finally, it is convenient that the clause includes an alternative way in case the mediation does not succeed either because the parties do not reach an agreement, or because they withdraw from the mediation. It is important to recall that mediation does not close the doors to the conflict be resolved by recourse to ordinary jurisdiction or arbitration. And in terms of specialized arbitration in distribution contracts, the IDArb (https://www.idiproject.com/content/idarb-idi-arbitration-project) is an excellent option.

    On the topic of the importance of Mediation in Distribution Agreements, you can check out the recording our webinar “Mediation in International Conflicts”

    It is not only since the days of the Internet that brand manufacturers have had to contend with the fact that original products are offered outside of their authorized sales channels. The problem has since been significantly exacerbated, however. The relevant products are also referred to as gray market products.

    The internal market of the European Economic Area makes it possible to exploit certain price advantages – that is, purchasing in one Member State at a price that is lower than in other Member States and selling to the end customer while passing on (or not passing on) the purchasing advantage. This is made possible by the “exhaustion regime”, according to which the sale of products, which at one time were made available in the European Economic Area with the copyright holder’s consent, cannot be prohibited.

    Brand manufacturers’ attempts to counter this issue by means of distribution systems may be an effective instrument, but only if all distribution partners adhere to it. If a distribution partner pulls out, trademark owners (at least in Germany) are initially required to contact their distribution partner who is acting contrary to the contract. That is difficult when the distribution channel of the products in question cannot be traced by security systems (such as SKU numbers) beyond any doubt. A right to information against a third party generally does not exist. Thus, neither the distribution system itself nor the suspicion that the products are not of EU origin may be used easily to justify a right to information in selective or exclusive distribution. The Federal Court of Justice, for example, sees no reason to deviate from the exhaustion doctrine when implementing a selective distribution system (Federal Court of Justice, 1 ZR 63/04). In the case of a selective or exclusive distribution system (Federal Court of Justice, I AR 52/10), the burden of proof is reversed. Accordingly, it is initially the brand manufacturer itself that is responsible for providing evidence for its allegation of a non-EU product.

    Exceptions are only made where, for example, the SKU numbers were modified, since this makes clarification difficult. In such cases, trademark infringement and at the same time breach of competition law are given by way of exception and it is not possible for the dealer to invoke exhaustion (Federal Court of Justice I ZR 1/98). The deliberate misleading of the authorized dealer by a third party to breach the contract is also recognized as an exception (Federal Court of Justice I ZR 96/04), which regularly is not verifiable, however.

    By the way, the sensational December 2017 Coty decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU C-230/16) (here you can find more: https://www.legalmondo.com/2017/12/eu-court-justice-allows-online-sales-restrictions-coty-case/) has not changed this basic presumption, either. In its Coty decision, the CJEU in the end confirms the exhaustion priority also and particularly for luxury products by referring to existing case law (specifically ECJ C-59/08).

    ————————————-

    Need help with your International Distribution Contracts?

    Click the button below to Receive Support from our Expert Lawyers thanks to the Online Help Desk

    ————————————-

    There are, however, more options available. As confirmed by the ECJ (ECJ, C-337/95), an exemption from the exhaustion principle already applies when the type of sale may be designed to damage the reputation of the trademark. In the Court’s opinion, this applies to the sale of products at discounters, if such a sale damages the reputation of the products to an extent that their luxurious image and quality is called into question (ECJ, C-59/08). This applies, on the one hand, if other products are sold in the immediate “neighborhood” to the branded product, without meeting the same quality requirements (ECJ, C-337/95) or if the advertising methods are unsuitable (ECJ, C-63/97). Hamburg Regional Court, for example, found that the use of photographs that are unsuitable and detrimental to the luxury image of a brand justifies a prohibition claim (at least with respect to use of the photos) (Hamburg Regional Court, 315 O 339/13). The Federal Court of Justice saw improper handling of the brand in an erroneous and negligent labeling of products (Federal Court of Justice, I ZR 72/11).

    Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court has now also followed these CJEU guidelines by prohibiting the sale of high-priced cosmetic products, which are distributed in the framework of a strictly regulated selective distribution system, at a discounter (Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court, I-20 U 113/17). The Court explicitly referenced the CJEU, by repeating its principles and then applying them in the case of the discounter:

    “The permanent and extensive sale of the cosmetic products at issue on the online platform www…de is suitable to significantly impair the image of the application brands. The way in which the products are presented there draws the application brands into the mundane and ordinary. As the relevant public is used to from the multitude of Respondent’s conventional self-service department stores, the offering on www…de of everyday products is frequently dominated in the form of particularly low priced own labels, such as Z.’s own label “O.” Respondent’s motto applies here as well. The assortment ranges from food to electronics, household goods, clothing to cosmetics. Since Respondent’s online presence was merged with that of the company “B” that it had acquired, it is moreover not only Respondent that offers its goods for sale on the platform, but also third parties may market goods via the online platform. The portal is designed to be functional and oriented toward products that are on sale. Customers are able to collect PAYBACK points with each purchase and may make use of financing. In some cases, goods are advertised at “instead of prices” and red letters indicate in attention-getting manner what percentage customers will save compared to the original prices. Product consultation does not take place.”

    By offering luxury products at random alongside every-day and mass products without any kind of prominent presentation and becoming affordable through financing options, the products would be placed on a level with the other items offered, thereby significantly affecting the prestige value of the products. For this reason, Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court pronounced a complete ban on distribution for the online platform and the department stores.

    Conclusion:

    Even if the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court’s decision is not to be considered revolutionary in light of existing CJEU case law, it certainly ensures some impetus in proceeding against gray market dealers, since national courts are now no longer facing the “uncomfortable” hurdle of applying CJEU case law, but rather in the customary fairway of national case law. In principle, Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court case law may not be understood as a blank check, however. Even Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court did not allow a general ban, but rather weighed individually whether the distribution in its concrete form could be prohibited. In the future, it will also be important to work out what in particular will determine the extent of the ban.

    The author of this post is Ilja Czernik.

    公司可以通过分公司、子公司或电子商务–或间接–通过代理商、分销商、特许经营商或佣金代理商在全球直接销售他们的产品。

    德国联邦法院现在首次裁定，佣金代理商也可在合同终止时要求赔偿(2016年7月21日的决定，参考第I ZR 229/15号)。

    什么是佣金代理商？

    佣金代理商是自营商他们经常受委托以自己的名义为另一家公司（即供应商）的帐户订立交易的任务。它们不同于分销商，因为分销商自己买卖产品，因此本身就承担分销风险（详见Legalmondo中关于德国分销协议的文章和关于“德国”分销商赔款–如何避免的文章）。

    针对佣金代理商的新规定是什么？

    联邦法院明确–按照为分销商解决问题的判例法–如果符合两个类比要求，也就是如果佣金代理商符合下列条件，则可在合同终止时要求赔偿。

    （一）作为商业代理被纳入供应商的销售组织；以及

    （二）必须向供应商提供客户数据，使供应商在合约终止后，能够继续从与这些客户的业务中获得实质利益。

    关于第二项要求(提供客户数据)，联邦法院指出先决条件是–作为一般规则-符合，因为成文法规定佣金代理商必须提供客户数据(sec.384 para.2 德国商法典）。因此，没有任何具体的合同义务，客户根据法律“属于”供应商。

    如果分销涉及“匿名大众业务”（即客户支付现金，销售中介由于客户关系管理措施而不知道客户名称），佣金代理商可能无法提供相应的客户数据。在这种情况下，根据联邦法院，如果佣金代理商提供了“有关销售过程本身”的数据，则应足以使供应商能够估计哪些类型的货物有需求（这与汽车、时装或电子产品等高质量产品的分销要求大不相同）。

    双方的义务可以让第三方承办吗？

    是的，提供客户数据的义务可以让第三方承办。然而，这种做法目前不会100%安全地将索赔请求排除在外，因为联邦法院没有明确规定，如果供应商仅有实际机会使用客户数据，佣金代理商是否也可以要求赔偿。因此，为了安全起见，还必须排除使用数据的机会（见下面的“实用信息”）。

    特许经营商呢？

    关于特许经营商作为销售中介人的问题，联邦法院确认，仅仅是顾客的事实连续性不足以导致赔偿要求(从而确认了反对2015年2月5日，对传统烘焙连锁“Kamps”的特许经营人所作的决定。第VII ZR 315/13号）。

    实用贴士

    保护自营商业代理人的条款也可同样适用于佣金代理商。

    关于根据德国法律订立的现存协议：如果符合两项类似要求，终止时的赔偿要求很有可能得到满足。

    关于根据德国法律订立的将来的协议，则如下：

    • 一般来说，通过排除佣金代理商提供客户数据的义务，可以避免赔偿要求。但是，应该明确地规定这种排除。或者，为了保险起见，除此之外，供应商可以强制自己在与佣金代理商的合同终止时锁定或删除客户数据。
    • 或者，可以通过选择另外的法律和管辖权来避免赔偿权（考虑到“德国”赔偿要求仍可作为《罗马第一条例》第9条意义上的压倒一切的约束性条款而适用的风险）。
    • 最后，如果佣金代理商在欧洲经济区以外行事，则可通过简单的弃权证书排除赔偿要求（根据类似的申请《德国商法典》92c)。

    We have seen in a previous post the advantages of mediation as an alternative dispute resolution method in franchise agreements. From there, what recommendations could we give to make better use of mediation? Although we will have to adapt them to each specific case, the following points could be very useful:

    1. Specifically foresee in the contract a mediation clause as an alternative dispute resolution method. Although the franchisee and franchisor can agree to mediate once the conflict arises without having reflected it in the contract, it will surely be more complicated to do so when both have already initiated the discrepancies. It is preferable, therefore, to do it before: it places the parties in a better predisposition, they will be able to choose the procedure in a better way, as well as the institution, the mediator, the formalities, etc.
    2. If the parties have agreed on a mediation agreement, this may be initiated at the request of only one of them, without having to re-reach an agreement.
    3. The mediation clause is also recommended, because once an application for the initiation of mediation has been agreed upon, the limitations period of the legal actions will be suspended until the termination of the mediation.
    4. By virtue of this agreement and having initiated the mediation, the courts will not be able to hear such controversies during the time in which the mediation takes place, provided that the interested party invokes it.
    5. In the clause, it is convenient to foresee some elements, such as what issues may be the subject of mediation (all or only some of them), the need or not of a previous negotiation, adequate deadlines to avoid that this procedure can be used to delay other ways, the applicable law to mediation and to the agreement reached with it, the competent jurisdiction for the adoption of precautionary measures, where appropriate, or the jurisdiction or arbitration to settle the dispute in case of failure of mediation.
    6. It is true that one of the principles of mediation is its voluntary nature. However, the existence of the clause and being obliged to attend at least one informative session before initiating any judicial procedure can convince of its advantages even the most reticent party.
    7. Include the mediation as an alternative dispute resolution method within the pre-contractual information that the franchisor must deliver to potential franchisees. Although the Spanish norm does not seem to expressly demand that reference be made, this seems an optimal moment to show transparency and the will to solve possible problems in an agile manner. It also predisposes the good understanding, cooperation and good faith of the franchised brand before the beginning of relations.
    8. Appropriately select the mediation institution to which to refer in case of conflict or foreseeing the best way to choose the most appropriate mediator. Currently there are many institutions or professionals that offer guarantees of impartiality. It may be relevant that it is a mediator with specific training, who facilitates the communication and confidence of the parties and, insofar as possible, who can fully understand the nature of the franchise. There are institutions in Spain such as the Signum Foundation (http://fundacionsignum.org/) or MediaICAM of the Madrid Bar Association (https://mediacion.icam.es) that can be good choices.

    On the topic of the importance of Mediation in Distribution Agreements, you can check out the recording our webinar “Mediation in International Conflicts”

    It is recommended that franchise agreements clearly foresee how to solve and deal with potential conflicts. The relationship between franchisor and franchisee may have some difficulty due, for example, to the absence of specific regulation of its content (at least in Spain) and to the fact that its elements are contained in different pieces of legislation. What I will say in these posts could also be useful for other distribution contracts, or in general collaboration agreements, although I will focus on franchising due to its special characteristics.

    Conflicts between franchisees and franchisors can cover multiple legal and commercial aspects: product supplies, brands, know-how, exclusivity and territory, non-competition, promotion and advertising, sales through the Internet … And all this, in a context in which, frequently, both parties want to maintain their collaboration and good relations.

    How to face, then, these potential conflicts? A first step is usually the direct negotiation between the parties and their advisers who have the task of being useful to them in this purpose. But this does not always end with a positive result. And the almost natural step if this happens is usually the beginning of a judicial procedure often preceded by a series of previous formal requirements.

    However, there is a way that, taking into account the characteristic elements of the franchise contract and the nature of possible conflicts, can be an excellent and privileged alternative method to solve them: mediation. Let’s see why:

    1. In mediation there is no third party that imposes its decision on the conflict. The franchisor and the franchisee solve it by themselves with the help of a professional (the mediator) who, in a neutral and independent way, uses their skills and specifically acquired knowledge (help in identifying the interests of the parties, active listening, legitimacy …) so that both can reach a consensus. The mediator does not advise (the parties can go with their respective advisors), it does not decide or sentence, but it helps that the parties find the solution that most satisfies both: they better than anyone else know the business, its evolution, the aspects perhaps not foreseen in the contract and the future that they want for themselves.
    2. Mediation is a harmonized mode of dispute resolution in the European Union through the Directive on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters. This allows the parties in different Member States to be familiar with it, therefore it is possible to foresee a unified system in contracts with international parties, and it will be easier to enforce the agreements reached.
    3. Mediation allows, therefore, to satisfy both parties better than the judicial alternative and with more creative solutions that a judge will never be able to apply. Unlike a legal proceeding where one usually wins and another loses, mediation can bring together the interests of franchisees and franchisors and, in this way, both obtain a better response. It allows a less belligerent and more friendly format that can be very useful since in many cases the disputes do not have too much entity to go to court, or refer to non-essential aspects of the relationship, or can be addressed from more global perspectives or with references to objective parameters. In addition, frequently, franchisees and franchisors want to continue maintaining their commercial relationship and, through mediation, resolved the conflict, this will be possible (unthinkable, however, if they had initiated a judicial confrontation).
    4. Mediation is, in principle, voluntary. At any time, the parties can abandon it even in those Member States or conflicts for which it may be mandatory to attend at least to the information session.
    5. It is a method that easily adapts to the characteristics of both parties: it is very flexible with the formalities, and the franchisor and the franchisee are who, with the help of the mediator, design a large part of the procedure to arrive at a solution being able to control its evolution. It also allows a solution that is much more adapted to their specific situation, provides more imaginative solution ideas, allows better dialogue, maintains the relationship, distinguishes facts from opinions or judgments, and allows the parties to return to their business saving energies that would otherwise be devoted to conflict management.
    6. It is a faster procedure than a trial, with a cost that can be assumed and controlled in advance.
    7. Mediation is confidential, so the publicity of the conflict is reduced, avoiding reputation costs or by extending to the rest of the network. What is treated in a mediation procedure cannot be disclosed even in a subsequent judicial proceeding.
    8. Both parties can arrive at a solution that will be binding for them. In addition, even if no agreement is reached, with the mediation the parties are in a better position to continue the relationship and resolve their problems: they have been able to present their points of view, they have been heard and have listened, they have opened dialogue channels, they have been able to show greater flexibility and, in short, they have improved their relations as a requirement to end the conflict and reach agreements.
    9. The degree of compliance with conflicts resolved through mediation is much higher than those imposed by a judge since the agreements are more satisfactory for them and it has been the parties themselves who have decided what to do.
    10. And finally, if the mediation has not worked, the possibility of claiming in the courts remains open.

    Ignacio Alonso

    业务领域

    • 代理中介
    • 公司法
    • 分销协议
    • 特许经营
    联系方式 Ignacio