Comparative Law Researches

Comparative Law Researches

Competitive Analysis of Territorial Restrictions in Vertical Agreements(A Comparative Study of American, European Union, and Iranian Law)

Document Type : Original Research

Authors
masumeh akbarian tabari 1
Mirghasem Jafarzadeh 2
1 Ph.D. Student in Private Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
2 Associate Professor, Law Faculty of Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Territorial restrictions are usually imposed by higher firms on lower firms about Sales domain of products subject to the contract­ or on the characteristics of customers in production or distribution chain. ­One of the controversial issues is the examination inconsistency or non-inconsistency of these with competition law. This study seeks to provide a clear answer to the fundamental question of whether territorial restrictions are considered necessarily a violation of competition law or are considered suspect restrictions. The results are evaluated according to the rule of reason in US competition law; While in EU law, exemptions are provided for evaluation the competitive effects declared legitimate and permissible if comply with the declared criteria. In the Iranian legal system, the legislator has simply mentioned two examples of territorial restrictions in Article 44 of the Law on Implementation of General Policies of Principle as anti-competitive restrictive conditions. Therefore, after explaining the concept and economic result, examines and analyzes the procedures of the courts and laws of the United States, the European Union and Iranian law from the perspective of competition law, and shows the surprising deficiencies provides suggestions to amend Iranian regulations to be more in line with the principles and objectives of competition law.
Keywords
Competitive Evaluation
Customer Allocation
Economic Effects
Territorial Restrictions
Vertical Agreements

Subjects

1-غفاری فارسانی، بهنام،(1398)، حقوق رقابت و ضمانت‌اجراهای مدنی آن ، چاپ دوم ،تهران، انتشارات میزان .
2- جعفرزاده ، میرقاسم و انصاری، ابراهیم (1393) .» توافقات عمودی ممنوع از منظر حقوق رقابت«، فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق خصوصی، شماره 7، صص 97-73.
3- جعفرزاده ، میرقاسم و رهبری، ابراهیم(1390).» تحلیل رقابتی تحدیدات مظنون در قراردادهای لیسانس فناوری «، مجله تحقیقات حقوقی، شماره 55، صص 291-213.
5. Allison, John /Prentice, Robert (2012).Business Law, Austin, Forty Acres Press.
6. Collin, Thomas (2006). Antitrust Law and Economics of Product Distribution, Chicago: American Bar Association.
7. Duns, John (2015). Comparative Competition Law, Massachusetts, Edward Elgar Publishing.
8. Frenz, Walter (2017). Handbook of EU Competition Law, Berlin: Springer.
9. Gavil, Andrew, Kovacic, William /Baker, Jonathan (2022). (Antitrust Law in Perspective. Cases, Concepts and Problems in Competition Policy, Minnesota, West Academic.
10. Jedlicková, Barbora (2016). Resale Price Maintenance and Vertical Territorial Restrictions, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
11. McKenzie, Baker (2018). International Agency and Distribution Handbook, USA: Baker & McKenzie LLP.
12. Monti, Giorgio (2012). EC Competition Law, London: Cambridge University Press.
13. Nagy, Csongor (2020). EU and US Competition Law: Divided in Unity? , London: Routledge.
14. Van Den Bergh, Roger J (2017). Comparative Competition Law and Economics, Northampton, Edward Elgar.
15. Whish, Richard /Bailey, David (2018). Competition Law, 9th Ed, London, Oxford University Press.
16. Winter, Ralph/ Pil, Choi/ Jay, LimWonhyuk (2020). Competition Law and Economics, Massachusetts, Edward Elgar.
17. Bacharis, Grigorios (2021). “Consten and Grundig and the Inception of an EU Competition Law”, European Papers, Vol. 6, No 1.
18. Bork, Robert (1966). “The Rule of Reason and the Per Se Concept: Price Fixing and Market division”, The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 75, No 3.
19. Colomo, Pablo (2016). “Article 101 TFEU and Market Integration”, Journal of Competition Law & Economics, Paper No. 07/2016.
20. Comanor, William S and Frech, Harry, (1985). “The Competitive Effects of Vertical Agreements?” The American Economic Review, Vol. 75, NO. 3.
21. Harrington, Joseph (2020). “Horizontal and Vertical Agreements: Differences between the European :union: and the United States”, Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu, Vol. 68.
22. Heimler, Alberto /Mehta, Kirtikumar (2014). “Absolute Territorial Protection and Competition in the EU, an Economic Approach”, SSRN Electronic Journal.
23. Hovenkamp, Herbert (2010). “The Obama Administration and Section 2 of the Sherman Act”, Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law, VOL.90.
24. Landrigan, Mitchell, (2017). “Vertical Price and Non-Price Restraints in Australia and the US, Australian”, Business Law Review 312.
25. Lawrence, Averill (2017). “Antitrust Considerations of the Principle Distribution Restrictions in Franchise”, The American University Law Review Agreements, 15 Am. U. L. Rev. 28.
26. Sokol, Daniel (2014). “The Transformation of V Transformation of Vertical Rest Vertical Restraints”, Antitrust Law Journal, VOL.79.
27. The Harvard Law Review Association (1962). “Restricted Channels of Distribution under the Sherman Act,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 75, No. 4.
28. Zúñiga, Mario, “Absolute Territorial Protection, Global Dictionary of Competition Law”, (2016). Available at: https://www.concurrences.com/en/dictionary/absolute-territorial-protection
29. Commission Regulation (Eu) No 330/2010
30. Competition and Consumer Act 2010
31. Guidelines on Vertical Restraints 2010/C 130/01
32. The Clayton Antitrust Act
33. The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890
34. The Treaty on the Functioning of the European :union: (TFEU).

35. 372 US 253, 83 S. Ct. 696, 9 L. Ed. 2d 738, Number: 54, 1963, U.S.Supreme Court, Parties: White Motor Co. v. United States
36. 388 US 365, 87 S. Ct. 1856, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1249, Number: 25. 1967, U.S.Supreme Court, Parties: United States v. Arnold, Schwinn
37. 433 US 36, 97 S. Ct. 2549, 53 L. Ed. 2d 568, Number: 76-15., 1977, U.S.Supreme Court, Parties: Continental T.V. Inc. v GTE Sylvania
38. Case 56/64, ECLI: EU: C: 1966, Consten SaRL and Grundig GmbH v Commission.
39. Case 56/65 Cour d'appel de Paris – France, 1966, Société Technique Minière (L.T.M.) v Maschinenbau Ulm GmbH (M.B.U.).