CRAM and Rheinzink v Commission [1984] ECr 1679
Judgement for the case CRAM and Rheinzink v Commission
Table Of Contents
Two companies, French and German. Supplied zinc products to a Belgian company.
Under terms of contract Belgian company could only use products for export, not resell products in common market.
However, the Belgian company started selling products in Germany, undercutting prices of German company. At that moment, both suppliers, German and French stopped delivering supplies.
Court: there was perfectly rational reason of parallel behaviour.
Held
If rational explanation for parallel behavior, then it's okay.
For Further Study on CRAM and Rheinzink v Commission
My notes cover all the main cases in intellectual property law. They a...
Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedSimilar Cases
Related Product Samples
These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
| Intellectual Property Law | Trade Mark Case Law Notes (68 pages) |
Competition Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Camb...
Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.