BETWEEN DENMARK AND THE THIRD COUNTRIES WHERE THE BANANAS COME FROM .
181FOR ALL THESE REASONS , SINCE THE REFUSAL TO SELL TO OLESEN IS NOT IN ITSELF A SPECIFIC BREACH , THE APPLICANT TAKES THE VIEW THAT THE FINDING OF AN INFRINGEMENT UNDER THIS HEAD IS UNJUSTIFIED .
182IN VIEW OF THESE CONFLICTING ARGUMENTS IT IS ADVISABLE TO ASSERT POSITIVELY FROM THE OUTSET THAT AN UNDERTAKING IN A DOMINANT POSITION FOR THE PURPOSE OF MARKETING A PRODUCT - WHICH CASHES IN ON THE REPUTATION OF A BRAND NAME KNOWN TO AND VALUED BY THE CONSUMERS - CANNOT STOP SUPPLYING A LONG STANDING CUSTOMER WHO ABIDES BY REGULAR COMMERCIAL PRACTICE , IF THE ORDERS PLACED BY THAT CUSTOMER ARE IN NO WAY OUT OF THE ORDINARY .
183SUCH CONDUCT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE OBJECTIVES LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 3 ( F ) OF THE TREATY , WHICH ARE SET OUT IN DETAIL IN ARTICLE 86 , ESPECIALLY IN PARAGRAPHS ( B ) AND ( C ), SINCE THE REFUSAL TO SELL WOULD LIMIT MARKETS TO THE PREJUDICE OF CONSUMERS AND WOULD AMOUNT TO DISCRIMINATION WHICH MIGHT IN THE END ELIMINATE A TRADING PARTY FROM THE RELEVANT MARKET .
184IT IS THEREFORE NECESSARY TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE DISCONTINUANCE OF SUPPLIES BY UBC IN OCTOBER 1973 WAS JUSTIFIED .
185THE REASON GIVEN IS IN THE APPLICANT ' S LETTER OF 11 OCTOBER 1973 IN WHICH IT UPBRAIDED OLESEN IN NO UNCERTAIN MANNER FOR HAVING PARTICIPATED IN AN ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN FOR ONE OF ITS COMPETITORS .
186LATER ON UBC ADDED TO THIS REASON A NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS , FOR EXAMPLE , THAT OLESEN WAS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS MAIN COMPETITOR ON THE DANISH MARKET .
187THIS WAS NOT A NEW SITUATION SINCE IT GOES BACK TO 1969 AND WAS NOT IN ANY CASE INCONSISTENT WITH FAIR TRADE PRACTICES .
188FINALLY UBC HAS NOT PUT FORWARD ANY RELEVANT ARGUMENT TO JUSTIFY THE REFUSAL OF SUPPLIES .
189ALTHOUGH IT IS TRUE , AS THE APPLICANT POINTS OUT , THAT THE FACT THAT AN UNDERTAKING IS IN A DOMINANT POSITION CANNOT DISENTITLE IT FROM PROTECTING ITS OWN COMMERCIAL INTERESTS IF THEY ARE ATTACKED , AND THAT SUCH AN UNDERTAKING MUST BE CONCEDED THE RIGHT TO TAKE SUCH REASONABLE STEPS AS IT DEEMS APPROPRIATE TO PROTECT ITS SAID INTERESTS , SUCH BEHAVIOUR CANNOT BE COUNTENANCED IF ITS ACTUAL PURPOSE IS TO STRENGTHEN THIS DOMINANT POSITION AND ABUSE IT .
190EVEN IF THE POSSIBILITY OF A COUNTER-ATTACK IS ACCEPTABLE THAT ATTACK MUST STILL BE PROPORTIONATE TO THE THREAT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE ECONOMIC STRENGTH OF THE UNDERTAKINGS CONFRONTING EACH OTHER .
191THE SANCTION CONSISTING OF A REFUSAL TO SUPPLY BY AN UNDERTAKING IN A DOMINANT POSITION WAS IN EXCESS OF WHAT MIGHT , IF SUCH A SITUATION WERE TO ARISE , REASONABLY BE CONTEMPLATED AS A SANCTION FOR CONDUCT SIMILAR TO THAT FOR WHICH UBC BLAMED OLESEN .
192IN FACT UBC COULD NOT BE UNAWARE OF THAT FACT THAT BY ACTING IN THIS WAY IT WOULD DISCOURAGE