September, 2015 [ Decisions]

1. When recruiting new franchisees to join E. T. Realty, Eastern Rehouse Co., Ltd. did not disclose important franchise information in writing to trading counterparts before contract signature. The conduct was in violation of Article 25 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.
2.  You Da (transliteration) Co., Ltd. restricted its distributors from determining their resale price for the “Haipet-S” product. The practice was in violation of Paragraph 19 (1) 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$200,000.
3. When marketing the “Wanngwo Brand AQ-10ST/AQ10ST 10-person stainless steel rice cooker with a reinforced inner pot” on the Rakuten shopping site, Jia Mei (transliteration) Electrical Appliances claimed the product was “entirely made of stainless steel” with a “3.0mm thick stainless steel inner pot” “manufactured with stainless steel pot soldering technology.” The wording 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. Therefore, the FTC imposed on it an administrative fine of NT$50,000.
4. In a table tennis lesson advertisement posted on its website, Kuojung Table Tennis claimed that “Kuojung Table Tennis is a table tennis teaching alliance established and managed by a group of national-level table tennis coaches and every coach has a national-level table tennis coach license,” “all table tennis lessons are taught by national-level coaches,” “the faculty includes 44 national-level coaches” and “all coaches are retired premier league players selected from Taipei Physical Education College, National Taiwan Sport University and National Taiwan Normal University.” The wording was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to quality of service in violation of Article 21 (4) in applying mutatis mutandis Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. In addition to ordering Kuojung Table Tennis to immediately cease the unlawful act, the FTC also imposed on it an administrative fine of NT$80,000.
5. Jia Mei (transliteration) Electrical Appliances marketed the “SANYO 10-inch energy label-awarded table fan equipped with a time-setting function (EF-10DT)” and an image of an “energy label” and corresponding text were displayed on the web page. 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 Jia Mei Electrical Appliances.
6. In an advertisement for the “Da Xue Shang Yuan (transliteration)” housing project, Beaudom Construction Co., Ltd. marked the “statutory open lot” and “balconies” on the floor plans for “A3~A7 units” with dotted lines and labeled them as part of the interior space. The conduct 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$100,000 on the company.
7. Bai Ling (transliteration) Technology Co., Ltd., a multi-level marketing business, did not file its change of company name with the FTC within the statutory period. The conduct was in violation of Article 7 (1) of the Multi-level Marketing Supervision Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$50,000 on the company.
8. Mega Sun Biomedical Corp., a multi-level marketing business, did not file with the FTC before starting operation. The conduct was in violation of Article 6 (1) of the Multi-level Marketing Supervision Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$100,000 on the company.
9. LOTES Taiwan, a multi-level marketing business, did not file with the FTC before changing its office location. The conduct was in violation of Article 7 (1) of the Multi-level Marketing Supervision Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$50,000 on the company.
10. Agape Superior Living, a multi-level business, did not file with the FTC before changing its product items. The conduct was in violation of Article 7 (1) of the Multi-level Marketing Supervision Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$50,000 on the company.
11. When marketing the “Ru Yi (transliteration) Star” housing project, Jin Ru Yi (transliteration) Construction Co., Ltd. and Shou Fu (transliteration) Advertising Co., Ltd. marked the balconies in the floor plan with dotted lines and labeled them as part of the interior space. It was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to use and content of product in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed administrative fines of NT$200,000 and NT$100,000 on the two companies, respectively.
12. In an advertisement on the 591 interior design website, Zuo Zuo Mu (transliteration) Remodeling Service posted the wording “Zuo Zuo Mu Space Design, Unified Business No. 38736298, was established in 1995 with NT$5 million as registered capital.” It was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to quality and content of service in violation of Article 21 (4) in applying mutatis mutandis Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed on it an administrative fine of NT$50,000.
13. When marketing the NBK-D11002 hair dryer, Neng Bao Kang Enterprise Co., Ltd. claimed on its website and in advertisements that the product had been awarded the energy label. 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.
14. In an advertisement for the “Fu Yu (transliteration)” housing project, Sin Yu Construction Ltd. marked the partitioning wall in the double wall as part of the interior space. 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$100,000 on the company.
15. In an advertisement for the “Da He Cheng (transliteration)” housing project, Tai Mao (transliteration) Construction Co., Ltd. marked the balconies as part of the interior space. It was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to use 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.
16. LG Electronics Taiwan claimed on its website that its vertical frequency-converting washing machine had been awarded the energy label. 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$200,000 on the company.
17. Chi Yi En Dian (transliteration) Precious Metals Co., Ltd., a multi-level marketing business, violated Article 7 (1) of the Multi-level Marketing Supervision Act for failing to file with the FTC before changing its product items, sales system and participation conditions. The company also violated Article 16 (2) of the same act for recruiting people with limited capacity for civil conduct to be participants without acquiring the consent of their legal representatives. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$1.4 million on the company.
18. Ching Yun Enterprise Co., Ltd., a multi-level marketing business, violated Article 20 (2) and Article 21 (2) of the Multi-level Marketing Supervision Act for failing to process within the statutory period withdrawals of participants canceling and terminating their contracts and the products they returned. In addition to ordering the company to immediately cease the unlawful acts, the FTC also imposed on it an administrative fine of NT$2 million.
19. Evair Culture Co., Ltd., a multi-level marketing business, did not process withdrawals of participants and returned products within 30 days after termination of participant contracts. The conduct was in violation of Article 21 (2) of the Multi-level Marketing Supervision Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$100,000 on the company.

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