The Moscow court rejected Mercury Fashion's request to challenge FAS decisions on violation of antimonopoly laws

The Moscow Arbitration Court refused to recognize the decisions of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russia as illegal for the Mercury Fashion company, which owns TsUM.

The FAS has identified anti-competitive agreements between Mercury Fashion and the Italian companies Dolce & Gabbana, Guccio Gucci and Premiata.

The court agreed with the conclusions of the FAS that Mercury Fashion violated antimonopoly legislation.

MOSCOW, September 29 - RIA Novosti. The Moscow Arbitration Court rejected the TSUM-owning company Mercury Fashion, which asked to recognize as illegal the decisions of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russia, which revealed its anti-competitive agreements with the Italian companies Dolce & Gabbana, Guccio Gucci and Premiata, according to materials studied by RIA Novosti.

FAS, in particular, found that Mercury Fashion LLC and Dolce & Gabbana have a supply agreement and a 2021 licensing agreement, under the terms of which “DG undertakes not to sell directly and not to appoint any other retailers (franchisees) for the sale of men’s and women’s Main Collections.”

Dolce & Gabbana has undertaken not to supply exclusive categories of goods to any other firm or company resident in Russia. In addition, “with respect to new categories of goods that DG may introduce to the market from time to time,” the owner of TSUM “will have the right of first negotiation,” the agreement states.

FAS identified a similar commercial agreement between Mercury Fashion and Guccio Gucci. It led “to the creation of exceptional conditions for the said persons to sell Gucci brand goods on the territory of the Russian Federation and the determination of general conditions for the circulation of goods on the product market, which led (could lead) to limiting competition in the market for Gucci brand goods,” the service indicated.

As the department established, after 2022, there was a change in the behavior model of Mercury Fashion and Guccio Gucci, “expressed in indirect supplies of Gucci brand goods,” which is confirmed by the sale of these goods to date.

The FAS, having analyzed the behavior model of Mercury Fashion LLC and the shoe manufacturer Premiata, came to the conclusion that the Italian company set “different prices for the same product for different market participants.”

The court agreed with the conclusions of the FAS that the Mercury Fashion company violated antimonopoly legislation, expressed in the conclusion of anti-competitive agreements, which led to the creation of exceptional conditions for the sale of goods of famous brands. The owner of the Central Department Store has a month to appeal three court decisions to the appellate instance.