1. Smartking Digital Cultural and Creative Co., Ltd. used the claim that the company’s books for children and teaching software were produced with government subsidization to promote its products. The practice was deceptive conduct able to affect trading order 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. Kiyu Co., Ltd. sent emails to the trading counterparts of its competitor and made false statements about the trademark that it had not obtained while at the same time accusing its competitor of infringing its trademark rights. The practice was deceptive and obviously unfair conduct able to affect trading order in violation of Article 25 of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$50,000 on the company.
3. Bionime Corporation restricted the resale prices of retailers for the company’s blood glucose monitoring systems of the Rightest and GE series. The practice was in violation of Article 19 (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.
4. Copy King Technology Co., Ltd. posted on its website the claim that “Copy King specializes in data rescue…lowest charges guaranteed…internal…plug-in types of hard drives starting at NT$3,000.” The wording was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to price of service and able to affect transaction decisions in violation of Article 21 (4) 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.
5. In an advertisement for the “Yi Chen (transliteration) Impression” housing project, Yi Chen (transliteration) Construction Co., Ltd. marked the parking spaces as part of the interior. The practice 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$200,000 on the company.
6. On the floor plans for the “Yuan Bang Yi Jing Yuan (transliteration)” housing project, Xin Ze Construction Co., Ltd. and New Taipei City Real Estate Co., Ltd. marked a part of the first basement level and the first and second levels on the rooftop as living room space. The practice was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to content and use of product and able to affect transaction decisions in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed administrative fines of NT$400,000 and 200,000 on the two companies, respectively.
7. Wei Tai (transliteration) Construction and Development Co., Ltd. and Tian Zhan (transliteration) Advertising Co., Ltd. indicated in an advertisement for the “Xuan Tai Wen Hua (transliteration)” presale home project that there would be public facilities, including the Lounge, the Tian Mu (transliteration) Hall and the Yun Ding (transliteration) Gym. The wording was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to content and use of product and able to affect transaction decisions in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed administrative fines of NT$1 million and 500,000 on the two companies, respectively.
8. On the floor plans for the “Zhong Shan Xiao (transliteration)” housing project, Gobo Service Co., Ltd. and Chuang Yuan (transliteration) Construction and Development Co., Ltd. marked a part of the first basement level to be used for a pool room, a gym and a sitting room. It was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to content and use of product and able to affect transaction decisions in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed administrative fines of NT$400,000 and 300,000 on the two companies, respectively.
9. Maikeda Limited Liability Company, a multi-level marketing business, did not process participant withdrawals and returned products within 30 days after participant contract cancellation or termination. The conduct was in violation of Article 20 (2) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$100,000 on the company.
10. When marketing La New’s double-patent high heel shoes on momo.com, Fubon Multimedia Technology Co., Ltd. and La New International Co., Ltd. claimed the shoes had been awarded a patent in the US. It was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to quality of product and able to affect transaction decisions 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 “Flexflow French intelligent self-weighing suitcase,” Es Tien Enterprise Co., Ltd. claimed the product was “the only suitcase that can weigh itself in Taiwan” and “the only innovative technology product in Taiwan that need not be carried and is able to weigh itself.” The wording was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to quality and use of product and able to affect transaction decisions 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.》