Taipei North District Gas Ind. allegedly violated the Fair Trade Law by improperly selling gas safety equipment under the pretext of gas safety inspection services

Taipei North District Gas Ind. allegedly violated the Fair Trade Law by improperly selling gas safety equipment under the pretext of gas safety inspection services

Chinese Taipei

Case:

Taipei North District Gas Ind. allegedly violated the Fair Trade Law by improperly selling gas safety equipment under the pretext of gas safety inspection services

Key Words:

gas safety equipment, passing off the business reputation of Taipei Gas

Reference:

Fair Trade Commission Decision on April 25, 2002 (the 546th Commissioners’ Meeting); Disposition (91) Kung Ch'u Tzu No. 091078

Industry:

Wholesale of Other Household Equipment and Supplies (4449)

Relevant Law:

Article 24 of the Fair Trade Law

Summary:

1. A Mr. Chu filed a complaint alleging as follows:
　　Mr. Tung-Lin Tsai of Taipei North District Gas Ind., in a uniform bearing the name “Taipei Gas,” entered Mr. Chu’s house to carry out a gas inspection. When Mr. Chu asked Mr. Tsai if he was an employee of Taipei Gas, Mr. Ts'ai called the company at the number 0800066186, and the answering receptionist informed Mr. Chu that the company was Taipei Gas. Mr. Tsai claimed that there would be a real danger of explosion if the gas tap were not replaced. Mr. Tsai then replaced the gas tap without the consent of the occupant and charged him NT$2,900. Mr. Chu later requested a refund but received no response. He alleged that Taipei North District Gas Ind. improperly sold gas safety equipment under the pretext of gas safety inspections.

2. Taipei North District Gas Ind. is a seller of gas safety equipment, with Taipei City and Taipei County as its major business areas. Its business differs from that of a natural gas supplier, but it bears a trade name similar (in the Chinese language) to that of Taipei Gas Co., Ltd., the natural gas supplier for the greater Taipei area. The “regular safety inspection services” notice and the “equipment requisition” form printed by the respondent bear the company's full name in a red seal script that is not easily legible and the characters “Ind.” are obscured by the seal. The overall printing gives an effect that misleads people to associate the company with the actual natural gas supplier for the Taipei area -Taipei Gas Co., Ltd. (Taipei Gas). The respondent printed “gas safety inspection” and “regular service” on the above-stated notice but failed to mention the sale of products. The respondent’s intention to mislead gas subscribers was obvious in its use of phrases like “to safeguard gas subscribers” and “please check the visiting staff’s employee badge before you open the door.”

In addition, the real natural gas supplier runs regular inspections for its subscribers once ever two years. However, the gas subscribers that Taipei North District Gas Ind. visited or installed equipment for were not previously its clients, so the term “regular service” was a misnomer. The “checked by” column on the respondent’s equipment requisition form was stamped with the wording “indoor pipes.” However, “indoor pipes,” when used in the context of gas supply services, refers to the galvanized iron pipes installed by the piping gas company to supply gas to its subscribers. In addition, the respondent’s employee carrying out the “safety inspections” was not a licensed technician. Accordingly, the above-stated stamp made obvious the respondent’s intent to pass off the gas piping and supply company. The Taipei North District Gas Ind. is not a well-known company, yet it states on its service notice that “recently, people not associated with this company have been distributing similar notices to carry out gas inspections for subscribers in our name.” However, the respondent's overall conduct made it clear that its real intention was not to prevent deceptive or misleading practices by its competitors, but rather itself to mislead the public to believe that it was the area's natural gas supplier by passing off the business reputation of Taipei Gas. In a questionnaire survey of customers on a list provided voluntarily by the respondent, many of those surveyed indicated that the respondent sold its products in the name of “the gas company” or “gas safety inspections.”

3. In the Fair Trade Commission's investigation it was found that as a ploy to sell gas safety equipment, Taipei North District Gas Ind. intentionally chose a trade name similar to that of Taipei Gas and printed and used “regular safety inspection” notices containing false representations. It concealed the fact that it was not a gas supply company and that its real business was selling products. By such false information it misled and deceived consumers, and sold its products under the pretext of gas safety inspections. The overall sales practices of the respondent constituted deceptive acts capable of affecting trading order in violation of Article 24 of the Fair Trade Law. In accordance with the fore part of Article 41 of the same law, the Fair Trade Commission therefore ordered the company to cease such deceptive acts capable of affecting trading order. After weighing such factors as the duration of the violation, the unlawfully gained profits, and the respondent's business scale, the Fair Trade Commission imposed a fine of NT$200,000 on the company pursuant to the fore part of Article 41 of the same law.

Appendix:

Taipei North District Gas Ind.’s Uniform Invoice Number: 13506191

Summarized by Lai, Shu-Ching;
Supervised by Tso, Tien-Liang

＊＊: For information of translation, click here

1.	A Mr. Chu filed a complaint alleging as follows: 　　Mr. Tung-Lin Tsai of Taipei North District Gas Ind., in a uniform bearing the name “Taipei Gas,” entered Mr. Chu’s house to carry out a gas inspection. When Mr. Chu asked Mr. Tsai if he was an employee of Taipei Gas, Mr. Ts'ai called the company at the number 0800066186, and the answering receptionist informed Mr. Chu that the company was Taipei Gas. Mr. Tsai claimed that there would be a real danger of explosion if the gas tap were not replaced. Mr. Tsai then replaced the gas tap without the consent of the occupant and charged him NT$2,900. Mr. Chu later requested a refund but received no response. He alleged that Taipei North District Gas Ind. improperly sold gas safety equipment under the pretext of gas safety inspections.
2.	Taipei North District Gas Ind. is a seller of gas safety equipment, with Taipei City and Taipei County as its major business areas. Its business differs from that of a natural gas supplier, but it bears a trade name similar (in the Chinese language) to that of Taipei Gas Co., Ltd., the natural gas supplier for the greater Taipei area. The “regular safety inspection services” notice and the “equipment requisition” form printed by the respondent bear the company's full name in a red seal script that is not easily legible and the characters “Ind.” are obscured by the seal. The overall printing gives an effect that misleads people to associate the company with the actual natural gas supplier for the Taipei area -Taipei Gas Co., Ltd. (Taipei Gas). The respondent printed “gas safety inspection” and “regular service” on the above-stated notice but failed to mention the sale of products. The respondent’s intention to mislead gas subscribers was obvious in its use of phrases like “to safeguard gas subscribers” and “please check the visiting staff’s employee badge before you open the door.”
2.	In addition, the real natural gas supplier runs regular inspections for its subscribers once ever two years. However, the gas subscribers that Taipei North District Gas Ind. visited or installed equipment for were not previously its clients, so the term “regular service” was a misnomer. The “checked by” column on the respondent’s equipment requisition form was stamped with the wording “indoor pipes.” However, “indoor pipes,” when used in the context of gas supply services, refers to the galvanized iron pipes installed by the piping gas company to supply gas to its subscribers. In addition, the respondent’s employee carrying out the “safety inspections” was not a licensed technician. Accordingly, the above-stated stamp made obvious the respondent’s intent to pass off the gas piping and supply company. The Taipei North District Gas Ind. is not a well-known company, yet it states on its service notice that “recently, people not associated with this company have been distributing similar notices to carry out gas inspections for subscribers in our name.” However, the respondent's overall conduct made it clear that its real intention was not to prevent deceptive or misleading practices by its competitors, but rather itself to mislead the public to believe that it was the area's natural gas supplier by passing off the business reputation of Taipei Gas. In a questionnaire survey of customers on a list provided voluntarily by the respondent, many of those surveyed indicated that the respondent sold its products in the name of “the gas company” or “gas safety inspections.”
3.	In the Fair Trade Commission's investigation it was found that as a ploy to sell gas safety equipment, Taipei North District Gas Ind. intentionally chose a trade name similar to that of Taipei Gas and printed and used “regular safety inspection” notices containing false representations. It concealed the fact that it was not a gas supply company and that its real business was selling products. By such false information it misled and deceived consumers, and sold its products under the pretext of gas safety inspections. The overall sales practices of the respondent constituted deceptive acts capable of affecting trading order in violation of Article 24 of the Fair Trade Law. In accordance with the fore part of Article 41 of the same law, the Fair Trade Commission therefore ordered the company to cease such deceptive acts capable of affecting trading order. After weighing such factors as the duration of the violation, the unlawfully gained profits, and the respondent's business scale, the Fair Trade Commission imposed a fine of NT$200,000 on the company pursuant to the fore part of Article 41 of the same law.