CADE’s General Superintendence recommends the conviction of Ediouro for anticompetitive conducts
CADE’s General Superintendence recommended, in opinion published in the Official Gazette on 24 September 2015, the conviction of the book publisher Ediouro for anticompetitive practices in the national market of leisure magazines, such as crosswords, logical puzzles and word search puzzles (Administrative Proceeding 08012.005335/2002-67).
The Superintendence’s opinion points out that the publisher would have harmed competition, by trying to prevent the establishment and the development of other companies in the market.
According to the evidence presented in the case-file, Ediouro started preliminary actions and lawsuits against competitor publishers, by presenting inconsistent grounding. During the course of the lawsuits, Ediouro proposed financial compensation to the competitors, in order to end the lawsuits and keep them out of the market.
Furthermore, between 1999 and 2009, Ediouro have sent 16 extrajudicial notifications to several competitors, in order to intimidate them for supposedly disrespecting intellectual and/or industrial property rights. However, during the investigation, it was possible to prove that these property rights have not been granted or that they have been filed by the National Industrial Property Institute (INPI in its acronym in Portuguese). In other words, Ediouro threatened competitors using nonexistent property rights, with the purpose to grant exclusivity on the market in which it already had dominant position.
Finally, Ediouro utilized its dominant position in order to try to prevent the access of competitors to distribution facilities. The evidence showed that, at least in one occasion, the company would have pushed a big magazine and publications distribution company to interrupt the distribution of another publisher.
For the General Superintendence, the conducts affected the national market of leisure magazines, in which Ediouro has relevant participation, by limiting and/or preventing the access of new companies. The conducts also resulted in the creation of barriers to the establishment, operation or development of publisher competitors.
The case was submitted to CADE’s Administrative Tribunal, which is responsible for the final decision. If condemned, the company will be subject to the payment of fines, besides other sanctions provided by the Law.