February, 2014 [Decisions]

1. Airiti Library pushed its downstream publishers to “set prices of e-books at 3-5 times thoseof paper books” in exchange for licensing for other e-books. The illegitimate approach to prevent other businesses fromengagingin price competition was likely to restrict competition or impede fair competition in violation of Subparagraph 4, Article 19 of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC ordered the company to immediately cease the unlawful act.
2. The FTC received complaints that the chairperson and two other people of Taitung County Betel Leaf and Betel Flower Production and Marketing Association reset the prices of betel leaves and betel flowers and sent a text message to inform the members of the association of the changes. The illegitimate approach to prevent other businesses fromengagingin price competition was likely to restrict competition or impede fair competition in violation of Subparagraph 4, Article 19 of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC ordered the company to immediately cease the unlawful act and also imposed an administrative fine of NT$80,000 on the chairperson and NT$50,000 on each of the two other people.
3. Digilion Inc. signed with its distributors a “distributor contract” in which it was stipulated that distributors who failed to sell products in accordance with retail prices set by Digilion Inc. would be punished. The stipulation deprived the distributors of their freedom to decide prices and also lessened intra-brand price competition between the distributors. It was in violation of Article 18 of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC ordered the company to immediately cease the unlawful act and also imposed on it an administrative fine of NT$50,000.
4. Ri Sheng (transliteration) Co., Ltd. advertised on used.carnews.com that it gave “warranties certified by specialized mechanics from major used car alliances and car conditions are transparent with double certification.” The wording was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to quality of product in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$100,000 on the company.
5. ULP Land Development Co., Ltd. claimed in its advertising flyers that the company was able to have “land for commercial purposes changed into land for residential buildings” and “recreational farm facilities increased from 10% to 40%.” The wording was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to quality of service in violation of Article 21 (3) in applying mutatis mutandis Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$50,000 on the company.
6. Century Town (translation) International Marketing Co., Ltd. (1) claimed in an advertisement for its ESC power-saving card that the product was able to “save 10%~30% on electricity bills,”“save 10%~30% power effectively”and “reduce10% to 30% of power consumption” and “the effective power saving capacity has been proven in experiments.”The wording was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to quality of product in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. Meanwhile, (2) being a multilevel sales business, the companyalso violated Article 5 (1) of the Supervisory Regulations Governing Multilevel Sales enacted in accordance with Article 23-4 of the Fair Trade Act for failing to file with the FTC before starting operation. In addition to ordering the company to immediately cease the (1) unlawful act and suspend the (2) unlawful act until it was duly registered with the FTC, the FTC also imposed on it an administrative fine of NT$300,000.
7. When marketing the “Da Qing Cheng Pin (transliteration)” housing project, Da He (transliteration) Construction Co., Ltd. and Great Advertising Co., Ltd. claimed that the National Taipei College of Business would “move everything on its Taipei campus to the Pingzhen campus within 3 to 5 years.” It was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to content of product in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC fined the two companies NT$100,000 and NT$50,000 respectively.
8. When acting as an agent to market the presale homes of the “San He Yan (transliteration) housing project, Jie Sheng (transliteration) Realty Co., Ltd. posted on the fence around the construction site that there would be “a 60-inch LED TV given to every buyer.” It was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to content of service in violation of Article 21 (3) in applying mutatis mutandis Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$50,000 on the company.
9.  Mr. A engaged in multilevel sales but did not file with the FTC before starting operation. The conduct was in violation of Article 5 (1) of the Supervisory Regulations Governing Multilevel Sales enacted in accordance with Article 23-4 of the Fair Trade Act. Besides ordering Mr. A to suspend his business activity until he was duly registered, the FTC also imposed on him an administrative fine of NT$50,000.
10. Mega Medical Incorporated Company, a multilevel sales business, failed to file with the FTC before revising the clausesand format of the participant contract. The conduct was in violation of Article 7 (1) of the Supervisory Regulations Governing Multilevel Sales enacted in accordance with Article 23-4 of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$50,000 on the company.
11. When marketing the “Farglory Imperial East (translation)”, “Farglory Oscar” and Farglory San Ming (transliteration) Garden housing projects, Farglory Land Development Co., Ltd., Farglory Realty Co., Ltd and Farglory FTZ Investment Holding Co., Ltd. claimed in an advertisement that the “5th Redevelopment Zonein Neihu has been chosen to accommodate the 40.23-hectare Audio-video Industrial Park.” The wording was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to content of product in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC fined the companies NT$200,000, 200,000 and 100,000, respectively.
12. KRIA Technology Co., Ltd. claimed on the company website that its ZANWA refrigerator was “applauded by international environmental protection organizations as a double green eco-friendly product,”“given the Taiwan Excellent Manufacturer Award,” and “the No. 1 eco-friendly and energy-saving refrigerator.” The wording was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to content of product in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$300,000 on the company.
13. When marketing the “Domes 20e3” housing project, Domes Construction Co., Ltd. marked some areas on the B1, B5, B6 and B7 floor plans with dotted lines to which it referred as interior space and outdoor gardens. It was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to content and use of product in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$600,000 on the company.
14. E-oil Co., Ltd. marketed the Red Line 5W30 engine oil on the Yahoo Kimo auction website and claimed the product had been “certified as complying with the API SN/SM/SL/SJ/CF standards.” It was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to quality of product in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$50,000 on the company.
15. E. Excel Taiwanincluded in the “E. Excel Policy and Regulations” a restriction on its distributors’ retail prices. The conduct was in violation of Article 18 of the Fair Trade Act. In addition to ordering the company to immediately cease the unlawful act, the FTC also imposed on it an administrative fine of NT$100,000.

《In case of any discrepancy between the English version and the Chinese Version, the latter shall prevail.》