EU Fines Hello Kitty Owner $7 million in Antitrust Ruling
The Commission found that Sanrio restricted cross-border online sales of Hello Kitty toys and other merchandise, violating EU competition rules.
July 09, 2019 at 04:35 PM
3 minute read
The European Commission has fined Sanrio Co. Ltd, owner of the Hello Kitty toy brand, €6.2 million ($7 million) for barring traders from selling licensed merchandise outside their home markets.
The company restricted cross-border online sales of toys, mugs, bags and other products featuring the popular cartoon cat—a violation of the EU's competition rules, the Commission said.
“Today's decision confirms that traders who sell licensed products cannot be prevented from selling products in a different country. This leads to less choice and potentially higher prices for consumers and is against EU antitrust rules,” Margrethe Vestager, the EU's antitrust chief, said in a statement. “Consumers, whether they are buying a Hello Kitty mug or a Chococat toy, can now take full advantage of one of the main benefits of the single market: the ability to shop around Europe for the best deals.”
The commission found Sanrio's illegal practices were in force for 11 years, until last December.
Sanrio is a Japanese company that designs, licenses, produces and sells products featuring Hello Kitty, an anthropomorphic cat, and other popular characters such as My Melody, Little Twin Stars, Keroppi and Chococat. Through its subsidiary Mister Men Ltd, Sanrio also holds the intellectual property rights to the “Mr. Men” and “Little Miss” series of animated characters.
Following an investigation into Sanrio launched in 2017, the Commission found that the company's licensing agreements broke EU competition rules.
These included direct measures restricting out-of-territory sales by licensees, such as clauses explicitly prohibiting such sales, obligations to refer orders for out-of-territory sales to Sanrio and limitations to the languages used on the merchandising products. Sanrio also used other measures to ensure compliance with the ban on out-of-territory sales such as audits and refusing to renew contacts with licensees who failed to respect the restrictions.
As Sanrio cooperated with the Commission in its investigation, the EU antitrust body reduced the fine by 40%, to €6.2 million ($7 million).
Sanrio is not the only company the EU targeted in its investigation of cross-border licensing. In March, the Commission fined Nike €12.5 million ($14.2 million) for imposing illegal restrictions on license holders that wanted to sell outside their home country. It is also investigating Universal Studios. The probes came as the antitrust division increased scrutiny of e-commerce as part of its efforts to foster a “digital single market.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllO'Melveny Secures Global Clearances for Korean Air-Asiana Merger
Coinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readAuto Dealer Software Upstart Accuses Entrenched Competitor of 'Attempted Monopolization'
4 minute readTrump-Appointed Judge Presides Over NASCAR Antitrust Dispute Under Case Reassignment
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: The Recorder and Law.com's California Legal Awards 2025
- 2The Week in Data Dec. 13: A Look at Legal Industry Trends by the Numbers
- 3Antitrust Class Actions Against CVS, Other Pharmacy Benefit Managers Are Piling Up
- 4Judge Grinds NY's Cannabis Licensing Regime to a Halt Again
- 5On the Move and After Hours: Barclay Damon; VLJ; Barnes & Thornburg
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250