Irish Competition Authority Decisions
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
Irish Competition Authority Decisions >>
J. Donohoe Ltd. / Bubble Up International Ltd. ( The Monarch Company ) [1999] IECA 552 (27th May, 1999)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECompA/1999/552.html
Cite as:
[1999] IECA 552
[
New search]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
J. Donohoe Ltd. / Bubble Up International Ltd. ( The Monarch Company ) [1999] IECA 552 (27th May, 1999)
COMPETITION
AUTHORITY
Competition
Authority Decision of 27 May 1999 relating to a proceeding under Section 4 of
the Competition Act, 1991
Notification
no. CA/768/92E - J Donohoe Ltd/Bubble Up International Ltd (The Monarch Company)
Decision
no. 552
Price £0.50
£0.90
incl. postage
Notification
no. CA/768/92E - J Donohoe Ltd/Bubble Up International Ltd (The Monarch Company)
Decision
no. 552
Introduction
1.
Notification was made by J Donohoe Ltd on 30th September 1992 with a request
for a certificate under
Section 4(4) of the
Competition Act, 1991 or, in the
event of a refusal by the Competition Authority to grant a certificate, a
licence under
Section 4(2) in respect of an exclusive bottling and distribution
agreement.
The
Facts
(a)
The Subject of the Notification
2.
The Notification is an exclusive bottling and distribution agreement where
Bubble Up International Ltd. have given exclusive licence and right to J
Donohoe Ltd to manufacture bottle and distribute Bubble-Up beverages in the
counties of Carlow, Wexford, Waterford, Kildare and Wicklow.
(b)
The Parties Involved
3.
J Donohoe Ltd is the parent company in a group of companies, several of which
also distribute drinks products in the geographic area affected by the
arrangements. Other companies in the group are involved in other trades (motor
sales, computer services) and are unaffected by these arrangements.
4.
The subsidiary companies also involved in the drinks trade are:
Patrick Keily & Sons (1957) Ltd,
100%
owned
Wholesale
Drinks distributor
Waterford
Thomas
Power & Co Ltd,
100%
owned
Wholesale
Drinks distributor
Dungarvan, Co Waterford
M
J Keane & Co Ltd,
100%
owned
Wholesale
Drinks distributor
Dungarvan,
Co Waterford
South
East Beer Sales Ltd,
100%
owned
Wholesale
Drinks distributor
Enniscorthy,
Co Wexford
5.
The Monarch Company Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A. is the parent company of
Bubble Up International Inc., a corporation of the State of Illinois, USA.
(c)
The Products and the Markets
6.
The notifying party submitted that the goods affected by the arrangements are
various packaged soft drinks in the lemon-lime flavour brand "Bubble-Up”.
The product is an internationally known brand, [
]. The lemon-lime market accounts for in the region of [
]% of the total soft drinks market, and 7Up has over [ ]% of the national
lemon-lime market. [ ]. A number of own-label alternatives also
sell in the lemon-lime market, produced for sale by major supermarket chains
and symbol groups.
7.
[
]
8.
The Bubble-Up brand is manufactured for sale in both the licensed trade (180ml
and 70ml) returnable glass packages and in the grocery/TSN/supermarket sector
(250mI, 500ml, 1.5 litre, and 2 litre PET bottles and has been produced in
330ml cans).
9.
The audited turnover of the J Donohoe Ltd group in the year ended 31 December
1997 was IR£[ ]. In 1998 the turnover, which has not yet been audited,
was IR£[ ]. The turnover in Bubble-Up by the J Donohoe Ltd Group
(i.e. J. Donohoe Limited and the subsidiaries listed above) in 1998 was
IR£[ ], or [ ] hl (hectolitres).
10.
[
]. Notwithstanding the possible existence of a wider soft drinks market, even
with the narrowest possible definition of the market, namely, the lemon lime
soft drinks market, the market share of Bubble-Up in this area is estimated at
[ ]%.
(d)
The Notified Arrangements.
11.
The purpose of the arrangement is the appointment by Bubble-Up International
Limited of J. Donohoe Limited to manufacture, bottle and sell Bubble-Up
beverages in the counties specified in the agreement.
12.
[ ].
13.
[
].
14.
[
].
(e)
Arguments in support of the grant of a Certificate
15.
The notifying party submitted that the agreement is an agreement between a
supplier (Bubble-Up) and a re-seller (Donohoe) whereby Donohoe is given the
exclusive right, licence and franchise by Bubble Up to bottle and sell Bubble
Up beverages. Pursuant to the Agreement, Donohoe is given the right to exploit
intellectual property rights relating to the Bubble-Up trade mark and know-how
which is divulged to Donohoe in the Agreement. Bubble-Up has provided J Donohoe
with specific written instructions as to the use of the Bubble-Up trademarks
and know-how in addition to instructions regarding the recipe itself. The
trademarks and know how must be used correctly; for example, only certain
colours and sizes can be used in bottling the product.
16.
The notifying party submitted that the Agreement is a franchise agreement
within the terms of the
Category
Certificate & Licence
in respect of agreements between suppliers and re-sellers issued by the
Competition Authority on the 4th December, 1998.
17.
The notifying party further submitted that J Donohoe benefits from the
arrangements by being able to manufacture, to a strictly defined and
confidential recipe, the Bubble-Up product, to use the Bubble-Up logos and
branding on corporate documents/truck sides, and promotional material in
accordance with instructions from Bubble Up International Limited.
18.
It is noted by the notifying party that the Competition Authority does not
agree with its assessment that the agreement is a franchise agreement within
the terms of the
Category
Certificate & Licence
.
It is however submitted that even if the Competition Authority does not so
agree, such an agreement is very similar to those described in the said
Category
Certificate & Licence
and must by analogy benefit from the reasoning in the
Category
Certificate & Licence.
19.
The notifying party also submitted that Bubble-Up's market share is small and,
therefore, the arrangements notified cannot have the object or effect of
preventing restricting or distorting competition in the State or in any part of
the State. The notifying party submitted that to the contrary it provides
competition in a sector otherwise dominated by one brand.
(f)
Arguments in support of the grant of a Licence
20.
The
notifying party submitted arguments in support of the granting of a Licence.
However, the Authority is of the opinion that the grant of a Licence does not
apply in this particular instance.
(g)
Other Information
21.
During the course of the assessment of this notified agreement, the Authority
was in correspondence with the notifying party on the merits of whether or not
the agreement was a franchise agreement as defined by the Authority’s 1994
Category
Licence
and by its 1998
Category
Certificate & Licence
.
The notifying party submitted a detailed Annex on 29 April 1999. The notifying
party also confirmed by letter, dated 11 February 1999, that the agreement,
dated 9 February 1966, “is still in existence and that no amendments have
been made to it”.
Applicability
of Section 4(1)
(a)
The Undertakings and the Agreement
22.
Section 3(1) of the
Competition Act defines an undertaking as ‘a person,
being an individual, a body corporate or an unincorporated body engaged for
gain in the production, supply or distribution of goods or the provision of a
service’. Both J. Donohoe Limited and Bubble Up International Limited
are engaged in the production and distribution of goods for gain, and they are
therefore undertakings within the meaning of
the Act. The agreement is an
agreement between undertakings. The agreement has effect within the State.
(b)
The Status of the Agreement
23.
It is the view of the Authority that this is not a franchise agreement as
defined in the
Category
Licence for Franchise Agreements
,
November 17, 1994 and as defined in its new
Category
Certificate & Licence
(for agreements between suppliers and resellers), December 4, 1998.
(c)
Economic Assessment
24.
The agreement is an exclusive bottling and distribution agreement where Bubble
Up International Ltd. have given exclusive licence and right to J Donohoe Ltd
to manufacture
,
bottle and distribute a lemon-lime beverage in the area specified in the
agreement under the Bubble-Up trademark.
25.
In its assessment of the conditions of competition, the Authority draws
particular attention to the fact that the market shares are small and that the
likely impact on competition is negligible. Although the agreement is an
agreement between potential competitors,
vide
Authority Decision No. 545
,
the Authority has concluded, that the products in question are exposed to
significant competition in the relevant market.
26.
The Authority is of the view that the agreement does not restrict or distort
competition in the relevant market. Therefore the Authority is of the opinion
that the agreement does not contravene
Section 4(1) of
the Act.
(d)
The Decision
27.
In the Authority’s opinion J. Donohoe Limited and Bubble Up
International Limited are undertakings within the meaning of
Section 3(1) of
the
Competition Act and the notified arrangement constitutes an agreement
between undertakings. In the Authority’s opinion the bottling and
distribution agreement dated 9th February, 1966 does not
contravene
Section 4(1) of the
Competition Act.
The
Certificate
The
Competition Authority has issued the following certificate:
The
Competition Authority certifies that, in its opinion, on the basis of the facts
in its possession, the bottling and distribution agreement dated 9th February,
1966 between J. Donohoe Limited and Bubble Up International Limited notified
under
Section 7 of the
Competition Act on 30th September 1992 (Notification No.
CA/768/92E), does not contravene
Section 4(1) of the
Competition Act, 1991, as
amended.
For
the Competition Authority,
Professor
Patrick McNutt
Chairperson
27
May 1999
© 1999 Irish Competition Authority