June , 2014 [ Decisions]

1. The chairperson of Jhongpu Township Betel Nut Association decided the price of betel nuts on his own and then the staff notified all the members of the decision. It was an inappropriate practice to make other businesses not engage in price competition. The conduct was likely to restrict competition or impede fair competition and therefore in violation of Subparagraph 4 of Article 19 of the Fair Trade Act. In addition to ordering the said party to immediately cease the unlawful act, the FTC also imposed an administrative fine of NT$300,000.
2. Taiwan Taxis, Longxing (transliteration) Taxis, Longdian (transliteration) Taxis, Huangxing(transliteration) Taxis and Fanya(transliteration) Taxismade a joint investment and set up the new Longxing Taxi Service Co., Ltd. The said parties were in possession of over one third of the voting shares of the new company and also obtained the rights to manage the new company and to appoint and dismiss personnel directly or indirectly. The condition met the merger description set forth in Subparagraphs 2 and 5 of Article 6 (1) of the Fair Trade Act and reached the threshold for filing of merger notifications specified in Subparagraph 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the same act while the exemption provision in Article 11-1 did not apply. However, the said parties did not file a merger notification with the FTC and thus violated Paragraph1 of Article 11 of the same act. In addition to ordering the said parties to correct the conduct within three months, the FTC also imposed an administrative fine of NT$1.5 million on Taiwan Taxis, NT$200,000 on Longxing Taxis, NT$150,000 on Longdian Taxis, NT$100,000 on Huangxing Taxis and NT$100,000 on Fanya Taxis. The fines totaled NT$2.05 million.
3. When recruiting franchisees, Hung Ming International Co., Ltd. did not fully disclose in writing to trading counterparts before contract signature the expenses required before business operation began and during operation, the range and duration of trademark right use, the content of training, the contract cancellation and termination ratios in the same franchise system in different counties/cities in the previous year, and the restrictions in the franchise relationship. It was obviously unfair conduct able to affect the trading order of the chain store and franchise market in violation of Article 24 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$150,000.   
4. During its franchisee recruitment, Zhong Wu (transliteration) International Enterprise Co., Ltd. did not fully disclose in writing to trading counterparts before contract signature the expenses required before business operation began, the total number of franchisees of the same franchise system in all counties/cities and their business locations, and the contract cancellation and termination ratios in the previous year. It was obviously unfair conduct able to affect the trading order of the chain store and franchise market in violation of Article 24 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.
5. Kuong Lung Enterprise Co., Ltd. advertised itself as “the only maker of name brand down beddings sold in department stores.” 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$200,000 on the company.
6. Yue Lao International Information Network Co., Ltd. posted a comparative advertisement on its website and claimed itself to bethe network with “he network with l Information Network Co., Ltd. posted a comparative representation with regard to quantity of service in violation of Article 21 (3) in applying mutatis mutandis Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. Meanwhile, it was also falsely and misleadingly presented in the same advertisement that its competitors did not have a system for reviewing contracts or refunding customers. The practice was obviously unfair conduct able to affect trading order in violation of Article 24 of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$200,000 on the company.
7. When marketing the “La More” housing project, Mr. A used the name and mezzanine design schematic of another business entity. The practice was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to quality and use of product in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$400,000.
8. Tao Hua Kai (transliteration) Co., Ltd. posted on the Internet a “one-to-one service comparison table in which the“appointment arrangement fee” charged by the other business entity was misleadingly presented to give the impression that the said business was no comparison. The practice was obviously unfair conduct able to affect trading order in violation of Article 24 of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine NT$50,000 on the company.
9. MOHWA International Cosmetic Co., Ltd., a multi-level marketing business, did not register with the FTC before starting its operations. The conduct was in violation of Article 6 (1) of the Multi-level Marketing Supervision Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$200,000 on the company.
10. MOHWA International Cosmetic Co., Ltd. claimed on its website that the company was “established on Dec. 2, 2000.” It was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to quality and content 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.
11. TV Home Co., Ltd., a multilevel marketing business, failed to refund its participants for returned products within 30 days after termination of participant contracts. The conduct was in violation of Article 20 (2) and Article 24 in applying mutatis mutandis Article 20 (2) of the Multi-level Marketing Supervision Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$100,000 on the company.
12. Shi Yun (transliteration) Automobiles set up a webpage on the 8891 Used Car website (http://swin.8891.com.tw/index.html) and posted an advertisement for “Proton Gen2 series, year 2006.” The content was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to price of product in violation of Article 21 (1) 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.》