Bronner v Mediaprint [1998] Case C-7/97
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-04 07:12:55 UTC
Little publishers, Bonner, complained that it wasn't getting access to distribution system of large media-print and this was abuse.
Held
No, there were other ways of getting distribution, they were simply less advantageous.
The facility of the dominant company was NOT, on these facts, indispensable and impossible to replicate. (e.g a railway track)
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
R v Monopolies and Mergers Commission ex parte South Yorkshire Transport Ltd
Plaintiff was a bus company that bought out some rivals. The Commission was entitled to hold an investigation into a company if, under the Fair Trading Act, the area concerned was a “substantial part...
Volkswagen AG v Commission
After distribution agreements had been signed, Commission found that manufacturer had sent circulars to all distributors with intention to influence the discount policy. But no evidence that distribu...
Tetra Pak v Commission
Company that had large Market share but also acquired exclusive patent and know-how license to operate in the market of cartons for milk. Court took view that fact that they had those intellectual pr...
Dimbleby v NUJ
Plaintiff (newspapers) entered a printing agreement with T printers. NUJ was involved in a trade dispute with T, and therefore ordered its members working for Plaintiff not to supply newspapers to T...
AEG-Telefunken v Commission Case
AEG operates system of distribution throughout the EU, to be part of it, needed to accept charging the high prices. One company didn't and complained this was concerted practice. AEG thought would wi...
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.