Before we look at the assertions of the parties and the decisions, it is important to understand the relevant legal framework in the event of a case. An “agreement” is defined in 2 (b) as a common agreement, agreement or act. Under section 2 (l), “person” includes, among others, individuals, associations of persons, whether registered or not, a legal person or a business, etc. Section 3 imposes an embargo on a person, undertaking or its respective associations to enter into agreements on the production, supply, distribution, storage, acquisition or control of goods or the provision of services; which will or are likely to appreciably affect competition in India. Specifically, Article 3(1) prohibits anti-competitive agreements which are considered inconclusive under Article 3(2). Point (b) of Section 3(3) provides that any agreement limiting or controlling the production, supply, market, technical development, investment or provision of services shall be anti-competitive. Section 19(1) allows the ICC to examine such agreements on the basis of the factors referred to in point 19(3), which are, inter alia, agreements that create barriers to new entrants or exclude competition by creating barriers to market entry. Article 19(6) lists the factors for determining the relevant geographic market, while Section 19(7) lists the factors for determining the relevant product market. While Article 3 of the Competition Act deals with anti-competitive practices, Article 4 refers to abuse of a dominant position. The Minister replied to a question as to whether CCI had received complaints about unfair competition and the monopoly of mobile operators against certain private mobile operators. On 7 March 2017, the Supreme Court (SC) issued an important judgment in Competition Commission of India vs.

Co-ordination Committee of Artists and Technicians of W.B Film and Television and Ors.1. described below, the Competition Act 2002 (“Act”). It found that, in the analysis of anti-competitive agreements, the first most important aspect to be determined is the relevant market2. Pending the opinion of that judgment, as soon as an agreement is concluded in one of the four categories of Article 3(3)(3), it was therefore considered that they were appreciably harmful to competition, without any further evidence being necessary. The judgment increased the CCI`s burden of proof in defining the relevant market, which is not only difficult to determine, but also has an element of subjectivity in its destination. Section 3(5) of the Competition Act provides that nothing in Section 3 (Prohibition of Anti-Competitive Agreements) limits a person`s right to prevent infringements or the imposition of appropriate conditions that may be necessary to protect his or her intellectual property rights, namely copyright, trademark, patent, design and geographical indications. 4.2 Applicability of Section 3: The ICC argued that the definition of agreement in Section 2(b) had a broad connotation and that any anti-competitive agreement between persons or associations of persons in Section 3(3)(b) was concerned. . .

.

Share this...
Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn0Email this to someone