78 Next, it is apparent from paragraph 52 of the judgment under appeal that the General Court took account of the fact that the distribution agreement between Nintendo and CD-Contact Data did not contain a prohibited clause, unlike the previous distribution agreements concluded by Nintendo with other distributors. Distributors buy and sell products on their behalf. As a result, they bear distribution risks and derive profits from the difference between the purchase price and the resale price, while supplier margins are rather low. The distributor is obliged to market and market the supplier`s products and to safeguard the supplier`s interests. Traders are less protected than commercial agents (exceptions: see below). The supplier is obliged to support and maintain its business partner, but subject to the economic freedom of the supplier. What courts, procedures and remedies are available to suppliers and distributors to resolve disputes? Are foreign companies limited in their ability to resort to these courts and procedures? Can you expect fair treatment? To what extent can a party to the trial demand the disclosure of documents or testimony of an opposing party? What are the advantages and disadvantages for a foreign company when disputes are settled in the courts of your country? A supplier may limit the warranty rights granted by law (see question 26) vis-à-vis its distribution partners. Are there any laws requiring distribution agreements or intellectual property licensing agreements to be registered with a government authority or approved by a government authority? Under German law, there is a general obligation to answer questions correctly and to provide certain essential information without any special request before an agreement is concluded (Culpa im Contrahendo doctrine). However, according to German case-law, this doctrine plays a somewhat limited role in the field of agency contracts. 48 The Commission submits, inter alia, that none of the three documents cited by Activision Blizzard – the faxes of 4 September 1997 and 3 and 12 November 1997 – indicates that those responsible for producing those documents did not distinguish between active and passive sales.
In addition, the Tribunal did not take these documents out of context, but reviewed them with the other evidence. It follows from the correspondence at issue that CD-Contact Data had participated in an information system intended to terminate all parallel imports and therefore confirms that CD-Contact Data maintained an agreement limiting parallel trade as such. On 20 November 2017, the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission reached a political agreement to end certain geo-blocking practices and to “prohibit three specific situations in which no justification or objective criterion for differential treatment between customers from different EU Member States is possible from the outset”, namely: 49 The Commission considers that the context must be examined before the exchange of information between CD`s contact details and Nintendo. Prior to CD-Contact Data`s entry into Nintendo`s network, Nintendo and some of its distributors had already put in place a regime to enhance the protection afforded to single distributors at the level of absolute territorial protection, and the parallel trade information exchange system was an essential feature of this regime. . . .