New Service Electrics ["NSE"] and Universal Electrics Co. ["UEC"] engaged in deceptive and obviously unfair acts which could adversely affect the order of trade and were thus sanctioned for violation of the Fair Trade Law

Chinese Taipei

Case:

New Service Electrics ["NSE"] and Universal Electrics Co. ["UEC"] engaged in deceptive and obviously unfair acts which could adversely affect the order of trade and were thus sanctioned for violation of the Fair Trade Law.

Key Words:

Guarantee; maintenance or after-sales services; designated rerouting; deceptive and patently unfair.

Reference:

Fair Trade Commission Decision of May 2, 1993 (the 84th Commission Meeting); Disposition (82) Kung Ch'u Tzu Nos. 028, 029

Industry:

Personal services (7090)

Relevant Laws:

Article 24 of the Fair Trade Law

Summary:

1. Philips Electronics Co. and Ch'iaohsin Electronics Co. (the complainants) reported that NSE and UEC (the sanctioned parties) intentionally applied for phone numbers which before the complainants ceased use of them had been the special lines for maintenance services. The sanctioned parties had made advertisements for maintenance services for household appliances with the phone numbers in question attached, thus misleading people to believe that those personnel working for NSE and UEC for repair were that of the two complainants and to enter into trade with the sanctioned parties. Such acts patently constitute unfair trade.

2. The investigation showed that in April 1992 Philips Electronics Co. publicized its correct address and special lines for services by means of a public notice advertisement printed on the first page of both the China Times and the United Daily News. However, the consumer tended to ignore the content of such public notice advertisements prior to any problems with defects of the products they had purchased. The sanctioned party took advantage of the habit of consumers to dial the numbers printed on the guarantee which had come along with the specific product when it broke down. The sanctioned parties thus deliberately chose phone numbers previously used by the complainants and designated rerouting of phone calls to take advantage of the said reliance of consumers on the after sales service information printed on the old guarantees of the famous products of complainants. Moreover, when answering phone calls made by the consumer looking for repair persons of household appliances, the sanctioned parties willfully concealed the items which meant much to the consumers, i.e., the qualifications of the trading counterpart, or misled the customers of the complainants to believe that they were the complainants' special service stations or affiliated repair departments, thus constituting deceptive and patently unfair acts which could adversely affect the order of trade.

3. Article 24 of the Fair Trade Law states: "In addition to what has been provided for in this Law, an enterprise shall not conduct other deceptive or obviously unfair acts that are sufficient to affect trading order." The sanctioned parties in this case unduly took advantage of the goodwill and customer base which Philips Electronics Co. and Ch'iaohsin Electronics Co. had established through many years of arduous efforts. The sanctioned parties' acts were thus found to be "deceptive and patently unfair acts which will adversely affect the order of trade" as specified in Article 24 of the Fair Trade Law. Therefore the two enterprises which performed the aforesaid acts shall be sanctioned in accordance with the first half of Article 41 of the same Law and shall cease or rectify their acts within a time limit.

　

Summarized by Wang, Jung-jing
Supervised by Kuo, Shu-chen

Appendix:
Universal Electrics Co.'s Uniform Invoice No.: 86490553

＊＊: For information of translation, click here

[Browse by APEC Member Economies] [Browse by Subject Categories] [Home]
[Decisions] [Approvals] [Interpretations] [Administrative Guidance]