Mei-hwa Video Ltd. allegedly sent attested letters registered with the post office and accompanied the police on raids of bars and other operating sites in violation of the Fair Trade Law
Chinese Taipei
Case:
Mei-hwa Video Ltd. allegedly sent attested letters registered with the post office and accompanied the police on raids of bars and other operating sites in violation of the Fair Trade Law
Key Words:
attested letters registered with the post office; search and seizure; coercion and inducement with profit; business reputation
Reference:
Fair Trade Commission Decision of April 6, 1999 (the 387th Commission Meeting); Letter (88) Kung Yi Tzu No. 8713181-008
Industry:
Audio Recording Manufacturing Industry (8391)
Relevant Laws:
Articles 19(1)(iii) and 22 of the Fair Trade Law
Summary:
Tien Chiang Chia Industrial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tien Chiang Chia”) sent a letter to the Fair Trade Commission (the Commission) complaining that Mei-hwa Video Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Mei-hwa), in line with its plan to introduce computerized sing-along equipment in the market, allegedly sent attested letters registered with the post office to Tien Chiang Chia's customers and accompanied the police in raiding the establishments of these customers, thereby compelling the customers to trade with Mei-hwa. The Commission was requested to investigate the alleged act, which violated Articles 19(1)(iii) and 22 of the Fair Trade Law (the Law).
Investigation showed that since 1988, Mei-hwa had
obtained exclusive license from the record company to reproduce the three songs mentioned
in the attested letter, namely, Lian Pei Chiu, Ch'ing Chai, and Pei Hsin,
in computerized sing-along equipment. In addition, the contract authorized Mei-hwa to
conduct raids on sing-along establishments and handle the relevant litigation issues.
Mei-hwa allegedly sent letters to businesses using sing-along equipment not licensed for
business use, requesting these businesses to check the list of the licensed songs and the
scope of their licenses. However, such act was to exercise and protect its rights and
interests, and Mei-hwa's fear of rights infringement was not subjective or arbitrary. In
addition, when Mei-hwa subsequently accompanied the police on raids of the aforementioned
businesses using sing-along equipment not licensed for business use, the search and
seizure conducted by the investigation and police authorities in accordance with the Law
of Criminal Procedures was an exercise of public authority and could not be deemed “improper.” There was no concrete evidence that
Mei-hwa violated Article 19(1)(iii) of the Law.
Mei-hwa did have the license to reproduce the three songs namely, Lian Pei Chiu, Ch'ing Chai, and Pei Hsin, in computerized sing-along equipment. In addition, the attested letters sent and raids conducted by Mei-hwa were neither targeted against any specific company, nor were they a dissemination of untrue statements capable of damaging the business reputation of another person; thus the act could not be found a violation of Article 22 of the Law.
From the above explanations, there was no concrete
evidence to show that Mei-hwa had violated Articles 19(1)(iii) and 22 of the Law by
sending attested letters and accompanying the police on raids of karaoke
establishments and pubs that used sing-along equipment not licensed for business use.
For the issue pertaining to song licenses, Tien Chiang Chia had obtained
licenses for family use for the songs Ching Chai and Pei Hsin, whereas for
the song Lian Pei Chiu, both Tien Chiang Chia and Mei-hwa had licenses for public
broadcast from the song's original writer or recording company. The dispute of the two
parties was a copyright dispute, so this Commission suggested that Tien Chiang Chia
resolve the issue through other means.
Appendix:
Mei-hwa Video Ltd.'s Uniform Invoice Number: 84486576
Tien Chiang Chia Industrial Co.,Ltd.'s Uniform Invoice Number: 84648869
Summarized by Lai, Mei-hwa
Supervised by Lin, You-ch'ing