apec1.gif (1822 bytes)Decisions of Administrative or Quasi-judicial Agencies -False,Untrue and Misleading Advertisement-2003

  1. Fu Lung Construction Co., Ltd. made false advertising for promoting sales of units in its "Hsin Kai Yue" construction project in violation of the Fair Trade Law
  2. Wonderswan Company Limited Taiwan Branch was complained for making false advertising in violation of Article 21 of the Fair Trade Act through the use of the "24 hour" indication on its signboard and membership cards
  3. Nice Beauty.com Corporation was complained for violation of Article 21 of the Fair Trade Act through alleged false statement of product contents on its nicebeauty.com website and product labels
  4. Fu Pang-Hua Chi International Corporation violated Articles 20, 21, and 24 of the Fair Trade Law for imitating the trademark of Fubon Life Insurance Co., Ltd.
  5. American Express Company Taiwan was complained through false advertising for traveler's checks in violation of Article 21 of the Fair Trade law
  6. Kuang Chuan Dairy Co., Ltd. was for publication of an advertisement claiming "Kuang Chuan has been awarded a gold medal for the world's top honors in dairy products three years straight," in violation of the Fair Trade Law
  7. Megaful Co., Ltd. falsely made goods advertisement in violation of the Fair Trade Act
  8. Chang Yi Enterprise Co., Ltd. was complained for false advertising in connection with building advertisements for its "Chang Yi Hawaii American Town Houses" in violation of the Fair Trade Act
  9. CEDCA Taiwan Co., Ltd. allegedly violated Article 21 of the Fair Trade Law by false advertising of the American Culture Camp
  10. The International Commercial Bank of China and Promail Inc. allegedly printed false advertisements in their mail order catalogs in violation of Article 21 of the Fair Trade Law
  11. Warning to New Century InfoComm Tech Co., Ltd. for false advertising in newspapers, using false and misleading presentations
  12. Ta Chong Commercial Bank Co., Ltd. made misleading representations in advertisements for its "Much" cash card, claiming "no processing fees" and "no service charge"
  13. Ta Chong Commercial Bank Co., Ltd. made misleading representations in advertisements for its "Much" cash card, claiming "no processing fees" and "no service charge"
  14. Multi-level sales enterprise Chao Shih Chi New Generation Technology Co., Ltd. improperly deducted a fee from the refund given to participants for goods returned upon termination of their contract, in violation of Article 23-2(2) of the Fair Trade Law

[Browse by APEC Member Economies] [Browse by Subject Categories] [Home]