Hugin v Commision [1979] Case 22/78
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-04 07:12:57 UTC
Took view that Hugin was dominant in market of spare parts for its own cash machines.
Lipton was firm that serviced Hugin's machines and couldn't use any other spare parts, so COURT took view that although there could be a market for spare parts in general, in present case, the market had to be very narrowly defined and comprise only spare parts for Hugin's machines.
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
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...
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...
Michelin v Commission
Michelin held to have dominant position in market of replacement tires of heavy vehicles. Michelin argued that relevant market was broader, and was market for replacement tire in general. First, look...
Stewart Gill v Horatio Myer
Plaintiff installed a machine for Defendant and claimed for the money still owed, requesting the court to give summary judgment (i.e. not giving Defendant a full right to defend themselves in trial),...
AEG v Logic Resource Ltd
Defendant made purchases from Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s standard order form (to sell on to Defendant’s customers in Iran) which stated that a full set of terms and conditions was available on request....
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.