October, 2015 [ Decisions]

1. After acquiring over one third of the voting shares of Global Business Group and one third of the capital contributions of Skynet Business Co., Ltd. and gaining direct control of the management and personnel appointment and dismissal of the two enterprises, Taiwan Taxi Co., Ltd. should have filed merger notifications with the FTC but did not do so. The conduct was in violation of Article 11 (1) of the Fair Trade Act at the time. In addition to ordering Taiwan Taxi Co., Ltd. to file merger notifications with the FTC and make other necessary corrections, the FTC also imposed an administrative fine of NT250,000 on the company for each of the two offenses. The fines totaled NT$500,000.
2. The FTC received complaints about pet food and product retailers and suppliers in Tainan City holding meetings in violation of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC investigated and discovered that Yu Zhong Yu (transliteration) Aquarium Pet Supply Co., Ltd. and six other pet food and product retailers jointly decided not to engage in price competition and also requested upstream suppliers to stop supplying businesses that failed to comply with the decision. The conduct was in violation of Article 14 (1) of the Fair Trade Act at the time. Meanwhile, Song Yun Tai (transliteration) Enterprise Co., Ltd. and three other pet food and product suppliers had violated Article 18 of the Fair Trade Act at the time by restricting the resale prices of their downstream retailers. For the aforementioned unlawful practices, the FTC imposed on the said businesses administrative fines that totaled NT$13.95 million.
3. Dog Being International Co., Ltd. violated Article 19 (1) of the Fair Trade Act by restricting the resale prices of its downstream trading counterparts. In addition to ordering the company to immediately cease the unlawful act, the FTC also imposed on it an administrative fine of NT$300,000.
4. Jiu Tai Electro-Optical Technology Company posted the energy label on its website. 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.
5. Sandthorn Co., Ltd., a multi-level marketing business, changed its sales system without filing with the FTC in advance as required by law. 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.
6. In an advertisement for its “Yun Cheng Fang Jian Zhu (transliteration)” housing project, Yun Cheng (transliteration) Development and Construction Co., Ltd. marked the parking area and balconies as part of the interior. 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.
7. On the floor plan displayed in an online advertisement for the “Ri Sheng (transliteration) Rainbow” housing project, Ri Sen (transliteration) Development Co., Ltd. marked the balconies as part of the bedrooms and the living room. 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$150,000 on the company.
8. When marketing the “He Su (transliteration)” housing project, Fu Kun (transliteration) Construction Co., Ltd. marked part of the parking spaces and balconies as part of the interior on the floor plans for the first to fourth floors of Buildings A1 and A2 and the first to third floors of Building B2. The practice 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.
9. When marketing the Tung Fu Airmate DC aromatic, remote-controlled and energy-saving fan FT47R on PChome Online Shopping Mall, Yuan Hui (transliteration) Co., Ltd. claimed 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.
10. When marketing MIDAS Taiwan-made 60x60 LED panel lights (1-, 2- and 5-bulb units), PChome Online Inc. and Bang Pu Qun Wang (transliteration) Co., Ltd. claimed that the products had been “awarded the energy label,” a “2-year warranty” would be given and the products had “passed the energy-saving 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$50,000 on each company.
11. In an advertisement for the “Li Yuan Dao (transliteration)” housing project, Li Xin (transliteration) Construction Co., Ltd. and Yuan Chen (transliteration) Advertising Co., Ltd. posted pictures of a lobby and a gym and the two companies also indicated in online advertisements that a number of public facilities would be available. 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 administrative fines of NT$300,000 on the former and NT$100,000 on the latter.
12. In an advertisement for the “Taipei Park” housing project, Chung Li Construction Co., Ltd. marked the balconies as part of the interior. 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.
13. When marketing the JT-2009S and 15 other gas stove models from JTL on PChome Online Shopping Mall, Bang Pu Qun Wang (transliteration) Co., Ltd. claimed the products had been “awarded the energy label” and also posted an energy label in its advertisement. The conduct 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

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