Powered by Lexis+®
Jurisdiction(s):
United Kingdom
CASE STUDY

“A lot of the work that I do is historic-the maximum sentences change at different points of time. It's really complicated and people get it wrong all the time. That's when having a timeline is really useful.”

1 High Pavement

Access all documents on Selective Distribution System

Selective Distribution System meaning

/sɪˈlɛktɪv/ /dɪstrɪˈbjuːʃ(ə)n/ /ˈsɪstəm/
What does Selective Distribution System mean?
In practice, a selective distribution system is a brand owner’s controlled network in which it supplies contract goods only to itself and authorised distributors or retailers that meet pre-set criteria; those distributors agree not to sell to unauthorised resellers, while remaining free to sell to end users and to other authorised members of the network. The term is descriptive rather than statutory, but is recognised in competition law and guidance: in the UK under the Vertical Agreements Block Exemption Order 2022 (VABEO) and CMA guidance, and in Ireland under the EU Vertical Block Exemption Regulation 2022 (VBER) and the Commission Guidelines. Key features are that admission and operating criteria must be objective, proportionate and applied uniformly; quality control may extend to online sales standards and, where justified, marketplace restrictions. However, absolute bans on passive sales or online sales, or preventing cross‑supplies between authorised distributors, are hardcore restrictions. Selective distribution is common for luxury or complex technical goods. Practical significance: when market shares are at or below 30% and no hardcore restrictions apply, selective distribution usually benefits from block exemption. The approach is broadly consistent across England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, subject to minor UK/EU drafting differences.
Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

View the related News about Selective Distribution System

NEWS
UK Competition Appeal Tribunal grants interim injunction ordering Porsche to continue supplying spare parts to Eurospares; reseller ban challenged under Chapters I and II; fast-track refused, expedited trial

Private actions CAT grants interim injunction requiring Porsche to continue supply of spare parts to Eurospares The CAT has delivered its judgment in Eurospares (Continental Parts) Limited v (1) Porsche Cars Great Britain Limited (2) Porsche Retail Group Limited, following an application by Eurospares (Continental Parts) Ltd (Eurospares) for an interim injunction. Eurospares sought an order restraining Porsche Cars Great Britain Limited (PCGB) and Porsche Retail Group Limited (PRG) (together, Porsche) from stopping or refusing to supply Eurospares with Porsche spare parts pending determination of its claim. That claim alleges that the design of Porsche’s selective distribution system infringes the Chapter I and Chapter II prohibitions in the Competition Act 1998. In response, the CAT granted interim relief, directing Porsche to maintain the supply of Porsche spare parts to Eurospares until the dispute is resolved...

Read More Right Arrow

View the related Practice Notes about Selective Distribution System

PRACTICE NOTES
Case C‑230/16 Coty Germany: CJEU upholds selective distribution for luxury goods; marketplace bans lawful; not hardcore restrictions under VRBE; clarifies Article 101(1) TFEU and Pierre Fabre

Case hub archived This archived case hub records the position as at the decision of 6 December 2017 and is no longer updated. Further information: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline A reference was made by the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt) to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU. The request sought clarification, under Article 101 TFEU, on the lawfulness of prohibitions on sales via online marketplaces within a selective distribution framework. Specifically, the German court asked whether a ‘qualitative’ selective distribution system can validly impose online sales limitations aimed at preserving a luxury brand’s image. The question emerged from proceedings in Germany between Coty Deutschland GmbH and Parfümerie Akzente GmbH, in which Coty Germany brought an action to prevent Akzente from selling Coty Germany products through the online platform ‘amazon.de’...

Read More Right Arrow
PRACTICE NOTES
Non-compete and related vertical restraints in commercial agreements: assessment under the UK Competition Act 1998 and UK VABEO

This Practice Note considers non-compete clauses in commercial agreements and the effect of the Competition Act 1998 (Vertical Agreements Block Exemption) Order 2022, SI 2022/516 (the UK VABEO) Non-compete clauses are contractual commitments that curb a party from competing with another’s business. They appear in numerous guises and are described using varied terminology; they may equally be labelled exclusivity clauses, exclusivity provisions, non-poaching clauses, non-solicitation clauses, restraint of trade clauses, or restrictive covenants. This Practice Note examines the impact of the UK VABEO and reviews the following familiar types of non-compete restriction found in standard vertical commercial arrangements where the parties are neither actual nor potential rivals: non-compete clauses in distribution agreements etc non-compete clauses in consultancy agreements exclusive supply obligations exclusive purchase obligations minimum spend commitments Arrangements that may restrict competition fall within the scope of competition law...

Read More Right Arrow
PRACTICE NOTES
Guess (AT.40428): European Commission Article 101 TFEU decision on geo‑blocking, cross‑border sales and online advertising restrictions; €38.821m fine via informal settlement with 50% co‑operation reduction

CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 17 December 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission probe under Article 101 TFEU into vertical limits on online advertising and cross-border sales attributed to Guess (Case AT.40428). Latest developments On 17 December 2018, the Commission adopted an infringement decision against Asus, levying €39.821m (following an ‘informal settlement’) for restraining retailers’ online advertising and blocking cross-border sales to consumers in other Member States (‘geo-blocking’), in breach of Article 101 TFEU. Parties Guess is a United States-based clothing brand and retailer that designs, distributes and licences apparel and accessories under several trade marks, including “GUESS?” and “MARCIANO”. In the EEA, Guess operates a selective distribution system. Background The investigation was opened on 6 June 2017, informed by evidence obtained during the Commission’s e-commerce sector inquiry. Market(s) Distribution and retail markets for clothing...

Read More Right Arrow