Competitive analysis of exclusive transactions in a vertical agreement (Comparative study in American, European Union, and Iranian law)

Document Type : Academicm and Research

Authors

1 Associate Professor, Department of Private Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran

2 Ph.D. in Private Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.

3 Ph.D. in Private Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran.

Abstract

As one of the most important vertical restrictions with specific features, exclusive transactions significantly affect competition and consumer welfare in product, technology, and innovation markets. Due to their anti-competitive consequences, these restrictive procedures are among the challenging issues in competition law. Therefore, this article seeks an answer to the question of whether exclusive transactions necessarily violate competition law or imply favorable economic and competitive consequences. In the present article, an attempt has been made to analyze the position of Iran's competition law by studying the legal approaches of the United States and the European Union while explaining the position of exclusive transactions in non-competitive relationships in the three markets of products, technology, and innovation, using a descriptive and analytical way. The findings of the comparative study show that this restrictive procedure in the competition laws of the United States and the European Union is evaluated by the new situation in the field of innovation and technology according to certain criteria and the rule of reason is usually applied to evaluate these limitations and The rule of absolute prohibition is used only in exceptional cases and in the case that exclusive transactions are seriously disruptive to competition. Instead, in Iran's competition laws, there is no explicit reference to exclusive transactions and the dimensions of these restrictions are unclear. However, these restrictions can be briefly inferred from several clauses of Article 45 of the Law on Implementing General Policies of Principle (44) of the Constitution. Therefore, it is suggested that the legal provisions be amended and the exemption regulations developed according to the interests of competitive markets and the specific requirements of the intellectual property field.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

جان محمدی، سجاد؛ حسین زاده جواد و حسینی مینا (۱۴۰۱). «تحلیل سوء‌استفاده از وضعیت اقتصادی مسلط در صنعت خودرو ایران و اتحادیه اروپا از منظر حقوق رقابت»، پژوهش‌های اقتصاد صنعتی، شماره 20.
جعفرزاده، میرقاسم و اکبریان طبری، معصومه (1400). «تحلیل رقابتی محدودیت‌های غیرقیمتی در توافقات عمودی»، پژوهش حقوق خصوصی، شماره 37.
حسینی مینا (۱۴۰۱). حقوق رقابت در آیینهٔ ساختار و تصمیمات شورای رقابت، تهران: انتشارات مجد، چاپ 2.
رهبری ابراهیم و حسنی وحید (1398). حقوق رقابت در عرصه مالکیت‌های فکری، تهران، انتشارات سمت، جلد 2، چاپ 1.
غفاری فارسانی بهنام (۱۳۹۸). حقوق رقابت و ضمانت اجراهای مدنی آن، تهران: نشر میزان، چاپ دوم.
کبیری شاه‌آباد حمید و کلانترزاده سعدآباد، سجاد (1401). «مطالعه تطبیقی معیارهای شناسایی توافقات عمودی ضد رقابتی در نظام حقوقی اتحادیه اروپا و ایران»، نشریه حقوق تطبیقی دانشگاه مفید، شماره 119.
موسوی، فضل‌الله و جدیدی، انسیه (۱۴۰۰). «مطالعه تطبیقی قواعد رقابت در ق قوانین رقابتی ایران و اتحادیه اروپا»، فصلنامه پژوهش تطبیقی حقوق اسلام و غرب، دوره ۸، شماره ۲.
 
References
Abbott, Alden F, and Joshua D. Wright (2008), “Antitrust analysis of tying arrangements and exclusive dealing”, George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper, No. 08.
Alese, Femi, Federal (2016), Antitrust and EC Competition Law Analysis, New York:  Routledge.
Asker, John (2016), “Diagnosing Foreclosure Due to Exclusive Dealing”, the Journal of Industrial Economics, Vol. 64, No. 3.
Barry Wright v. ITT Grinnell, 724 F.2d 227 (1st Cir. 1983).
Beltone Electronics Corp. V. Superior Court (People) (1978).
Blair, Roger & Daniel Sokol (2014), The Oxford Handbook of International Antitrust Economics, Oxford:  University Press.
Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp, 509 US 209 (1993).
Clifford, Jones, Matsushita, Mitsuo (2002), Competition Policy in Global Trading System, London:  Kluwer Law International.
Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/720 of 10 May 2022 on the application of article 101(3) of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices.
Commission regulation (EU) no 316/2014 of 21 March 2014 on the application of article 101(3) of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union to categories of technology transfer agreements.
Commission regulation (EU) no 316/2014 of 21 March 2014 on the application of article 101(3) of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union to categories of technology transfer agreements.
Concord Boat Corp. v. Brunswick Corp, 207 F.3d 1039 (8th Cir. 2000).
Contreras, Jorge L (2022), Intellectual Property Licensing and Transactions:  Theory and Practice, Cambridge University Press.
Csongor, Nagy (2020), EU and US Competition Law), USA:  Routledge).
Donoghue KC, Robert, and Jorge Padilla (2020), The Law and Economics of Article 102 TFEU, Oxford:  Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
Duns, John & Duke Arlen (2015), Competition Law:  Cases and Materials, Edition4, Sydney:  LexisNexis Butterworths.
Duns, John, (2015), Comparative Competition Law, Massachusetts:  Edward Elgar Publishing.
Enchelmaier, Stefan (2023), “Restrictions ‘by object’ after Generics, Lundbeck, and Budapest Bank:  are we any wiser now?” Journal of Antitrust Enforcement, Volume 11, Issue 1.
Federal Trade Commission v. McCormick (FTC Dkt. No. C3939) (2000) (FTC File No. 961-0050).
Frenz, Walter (2017), Handbook of EU Competition Law, Berlin:  Springer.
FTC v Brown Shoe Co, Inc, 384 U.S. 316 (1966).
Guidelines on Commission Regulation (EU) No 316/2014 of 21 March 2014 on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to categories of technology transfer agreements.
Guidelines on vertical restraints, Brussels, 10.5.2022.
Hoffmann - v La Roche [1979] 3 CMLR 211 para 90.
Jedlicková, Barbora (2016), Resale Price Maintenance and Vertical Territorial Restrictions, Cheltenham:  Edward Elgar Publishing Limited).
Kaltenbrunner, Lisa (2022), European Union:  Abuse of dominance and article 102 of the TFEU, Ropes & Gray.
Khairawati, Salihah (2020), "Effect of customer loyalty program on customer satisfaction and its impact on customer loyalty”, International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science, Vol.9 No.1.
Kobayashi Bruce H (2005), “The Economics of Loyalty Discounts and Antitrust Law in the United States”, Law & Economics,05-26.
Mills David (2017), Buyer-Induced Exclusive Dealing, USA:  Southern Economic Journal Department of Economics.
Monti Giorgio (2012), EC Competition Law”, London:  Cambridge University Press.
Omega Envti Inc v Gilbarca Inc, 127 F.3d1157, 1163(9th Cir.1997).
Peeperkorn Luc & Rousseva Ekaterina (2011), “Article 102 TFEU:  Exclusive Dealing and Rebates”, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, Vol.2 No.1.
Shubha Ghosh (2017), Encyclopedia of Law and Economics, USA:  Edward Elgar Publishing.
Sobel Gerald (2003),“ Competition policy in patent cases and antitrust”, Advances in Genetics Volume, 50.
Standard Oil Co (Cal.) v. United States337 US293 (1949).
Tampa Electric Co.v. Nashville Co.365 US320 (1961).
Tomra Systems ASA and Others V. European Commission [2010].
Van den Bergh Foods Ltd OJ1998 L246/1 on appeal Case T -65/98 Van den Bergh Foods Ltd V Commission [2003] ECR II -4653.
Winter Ralph&Ginsburg Marty, KovacicWilliam (2020) Competition Law and Economics, USA:  Edward Elgar.
Hovenkamp, Herbert (2020), “Federal Antitrust Policy”, The Law of Competition and Its Practice, West Academic Publishing, 6th Edition.
https: //www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=35512
Sanofi/Maze Therapeutics, Inc, In the Matter of MZE001, 2023.
In Persian
Ghaffari Farsani, Behnam (2014), Competition Law and its Civil Remedies, Tehran:  Mizan Publications
Hosseini, Mina (2021) Competition Laws in the Mirror of the Structure and Decisions, Tehran:  Majd Publications.
Jafarzadeh, M; Akbarian. Tabari (2021), “Competitive Analysis of Non-Price Restraints in Vertical Agreements (A Comparative Study of American, European Union, and Iranian Law)”, private Law Research, Volume 10, pp 37-75.
Janmohamadi, Sajjad; Hoseinzadeh, Javad; Hosseini, Mina
 (2022), “Analyzing the Abuse of dominant position in the Iranian and European automotive industries view of competition law”, Quarterly Journal of Industrial Economics Researches, Vol. 6, No. 20, pp 1-14.
Kabiri Shahabad, H; Kalantarzadeh Sadabad, S (2023), “A Comparative Study of the Criteria for Identifying Vertical Anti-Competitive Agreements in the Legal System of the European Union and Iran”, The Journal of Comparative Law, Mofid University, Volume 10. No. 1, pp 243-270.
Mousavi, Fazllolah; Jadidi Ensiye (2020), “A Comparative Study of Competitive Rules in
Competition Laws of Iran and the European Union”, Comparative Studies on Islamic and Western Law, Volume 8, Issue 2, No. 28, pp 279-312.
Rahbari, Ebrahim, Hasani Sangani, Vahid (2019). Competition Law in the Realm of Intellectual Ownership (Vol.I, 2):  Notions, Basic Rules and Anticompetitive Agreements, Tehran:  SAMT Publications.
Send comment about this article
CAPTCHA Image

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics