Competition
Representative Transactions

Hunt Oil Company of Perú L.L.C. Sucursal del Perú
At present, we are advising our client on the proceeding initiated by Termochilca CHC, who filed a complaint alleging that our client had supposedly violated the Peruvian Competition Law rules pointing out “refusal to deal” and “discrimination” as specific forms of abuse of dominant position.
Besides our client, Pluspetrol Perú Corporation S.A., Pluspetrol Camisea S.A., SK Energy Sucursal Peruana, Sonatrach Perú Corporation S.A.C., Tecpetrol del Perú S.A.C. and Repsol Exploración Perú Sucursal Perú are involved in the aforementioned proceeding. (2009).

Telefónica Móviles S.A., Motorola Del Perú S.A., Nokia Inc. and electronic equipment distributors
In these administrative litigations –in which we have obtained favorable results with respect to our prior files in the first instance- some telecommunications enterprises, like Telefonica, cell phones manufacturers, like Motorola and Nokia, and electronic equipment distributors are involved.
The complaints have been filed against the Peruvian copyright collective agencies whereas the latter have charged our clients illegal and irrational amounts. (2008).

Sigdelo S.A.
The parties involved are Sigedlo S.A. (an enterprise that has bought the Burger King franchise): Centros Comerciales S.A. (Centro Comercial Jockey Plaza operator) and Arcos Dorados S.A. (an enterprise that has bought the Mc Donald’s franchise in Peru). On April 2008, The National Institute for the Defense of Competition and Intellectual Property (INDECOPI) gave leed to proceed a complaint filed by Arcos Dorados S.A. against Sigdelo S.A. and Centros Comerciales S.A. pointing out restrictive competition practices (vertical restriction) in the forms of exclusive distribution agreements. (2008).

Honda del Perú S.A. (Honda Motor Co. representative)
Honda filed a complaint charging “Distribuidora Import & Export S.R.L” and “JFX Corporation S.R.L” unfair competition in violation of the Peruvian Unfair Competition Law and the Peruvian Advertising Law.
Specifically, our client alleged that the above-mentioned enterprises used the principal (Honda Motor Company) trademarks taking advantage of the excellent reputation of Honda. The complaint was totally sustained. Nowadays, the amount of the fine is being decided. (2008).

Colgate-Palmolive Perú S.A. (Colgate-Palmolive Company representative)
We are advising our client before INDECOPI and the Judiciary against Intradevco Industrail S.A. regarding the spot “Dento Peruana por los cuatro costados”. In this case, it was discussed the falseness of the statements referred to origin of the promoted product as well as the denigration against some competitors. The Supreme Court confirmed INDECOPI’s Resolution. (2008).

Inversiones Nacionales de Turismo S.A.
INDECOPI filed a complaint against our client Hotel Libertador and some other hotel companies alleging false advertising. Despite INDECOPI spread the news that our client violated the Consumer Protection Law ate the very start of the proceeding, afterwards INDECOPI, who made our arguments theirs, dismissed the complaint. We asked INDECOPI for a public apology and solicited the sanction of the officials involved in the defamation against our client. (2008).

Laboratorios Abbott S.A.
ASPEC, the most important consumer association in Peru, filed a complaint against our client alleging that one of its products –a breast milk substitute- did not indicate the age of the children it was targeted violating the Reglamento de Alimentación Infantil. INDECOPI made our arguments theirs and stated that the product was not a substitute but nourishment and according to the ordinances of the current legislation (Reglamento de Alimentos y Bebidas) there was no obligation. (2008).

Orbcomm Perú S.A.
We are advising our client on the proceeding before OSIPTEL (Peru’s telecom regulator) with the purpose of getting the unique telecommunications concession and the registration of the non-voice mobile satellite service. (2008).

Cadbury Adams; Pepsico International (Frito Lay, Pepsico Beverage); Nestle

Beiersdorf S.A.C (Nivea); Bayer S.A.; Brystol –Myers Squibb Perú S.A.; Grunenthal Peruana S.A.; Pfizer S.A.; Merck Sharp & Dohme S.R.L; Perufarma S.A.; Abbott Laboratorios S.A.; Johnson Cilag

G. W. Yichang; Makro Supermayorista S.A.;
We are advising our clients with respect to advertising and labeling of product according to the market sector they are in (food and beverage, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, alcoholic drinks, amongst others) with the purpose of avoiding legal actions takings before INDECOPI.
It must be pointed out that the current legislation regarding the labeling of products is diverse and ample, that’s the reason why we studied, as a preventive measure, the laws, rules and binding Metrologic rules and technical norms including the international Codex Alimentarius norms (FAO-OMS). (2008).

British American Tobacco del Perú (BAT) S.A.C.
We are advising, as a preventive measure, our client regarding the advertising and commercialization of tobacco products. In the same way, we are advising BAT accurately with respect to eventual legal action takings. In Peru, the tobacco market is strictly regulated and BAT needs constant assessment regarding its commercialization decisions. (2008).

Lápices y Conexos S.A.
On March 2007, INDECOPI filed a complaint against our client alleging that its colored pencils, which were previously confiscated in informal markets, exceeded the permissible levels of toxicity. After we filed an appeal, INDECOPI dismissed the complaint stating that Peruvian Food Administration did not obey the international rules when taking a sample of the colored pencils. (2007).

Metal Steel Galati S.A.
We advised, with favorable results, our client in the proceeding regarding the antidumping rights applied on plain products (coil and iron) of laminated steel produced in Rumania. We got the elimination of the antidumping measures stated by Resolution Nº 0051-2004/TDC. (2007).

Bristol Myers Squibb Perú S.A.
We successfully advised our client in the proceeding filed by INDECOPI regarding an spot that supposedly fostered the discrimination against low income family men which could not purchase our clients products. INDECOPI, as second instance, stated that the prior arguments were forced and that the spot promoted the good qualities of the product. (2006).

Hipermercados Metro S.A.
We successfully advised our client in the proceeding filed by itself against Supermercados Peruanos SA regarding the violation of unfair competition rules (specifically advertising rules). The matter consisted in the analysis of two spots that employed the figure of comparative advertising on prices and structural differences on the commercial establishments between our client and its competitor, despite the information released in both spots were false. (2005).