Competition Law In India Research Articles

Standard Essential Patents and Abuse of Dominance: Implications for India's Telecom Sector

The rapid advancement of technology has positioned Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) as a critical component of innovation in the telecommunications sector, particularly in India. SEPs are patents that cover inventions essential to industry standards, facilitating interoperability and ensuring effective communication between devices. However, the significant market power held by SEP holders raises important concerns regarding the potential abuse of dominance, especially when these entities impose excessive licensing fees or engage in discriminatory practices. This paper examines the intersection of SEPs and competition law in India, focusing on the legal challenges faced by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) in regulating SEP holders under the Competition Act, 2002. By analyzing the regulatory framework and its implications for market dynamics, this study highlights the necessity for a balanced approach that protects both intellectual property rights and competitive practices. The findings suggest that while existing legal mechanisms aim to address abuses of dominance, there is a pressing need for clearer guidelines and stronger enforcement to ensure that SEPs foster innovation without stifling competition in India's rapidly evolving telecom landscape.

Addressing the Abuse of Dominance in India Under the Competition Act, 2002

The regulation of abuse of dominance within India's competition law framework is pivotal for ensuring equitable competition, market efficacy, and consumer well-being. This research paper delves into the intricate dimensions of addressing abuse of dominance within the Indian context, shedding light on the legal framework, enforcement mechanisms, case precedents, and emerging hurdles. Commencing with an exhaustive overview, the paper meticulously examines the legal framework dictating abuse of dominance, elucidating the provisions enshrined in the Competition Act, 2002, and pertinent regulations. Through a thorough analysis of statutory clauses and judicial interpretations, it delineates the criteria and benchmarks utilized for discerning and adjudicating instances of abuse of dominance, thereby providing insights into the evolving jurisprudence in this sphere. Drawing from a diverse array of case laws and precedents, the paper traverses through seminal judgments and enforcement actions undertaken by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) to address abuse of dominance. Through meticulous case analyses, readers are furnished with a deeper comprehension of the enforcement mechanisms deployed by the CCI, encompassing investigative processes, adjudicatory proceedings, and the imposition of remedies and sanctions. Moreover, the paper delves into emerging challenges and discourse surrounding abuse of dominance, encompassing its intersection with digital markets, burgeoning technologies, and the phenomenon of globalization. By scrutinizing contemporary issues such as platform hegemony, apprehensions regarding data privacy, and ramifications of cross-border transactions, the paper furnishes insights into the intricate facets of regulating abuse of dominance within India's dynamic market milieu. In conclusion, this research paper furnishes a comprehensive exploration of the strategies, mechanisms, and impediments entailed in addressing abuse of dominance under competition law in India. By amalgamating legal tenets, case dissections, and contemporary developments, the paper seeks to enrich the scholarly dialogue on competition law enforcement and proffer pragmatic insights for policymakers, practitioners, and stakeholders navigating the convolutions of India's competitive landscape.

Resolving Turf Between Sectoral Regulators and CCI-Revamping Competition Law in India

Resolving Turf Between Sectoral Regulators and CCI-Revamping Competition Law in India

The incremental growth of unfair competition law in India

Abstract In keeping with other common law jurisdictions, India lacks a unified legal basis for protection against unfair competition. There is no single legislative reference point, or standalone tort of unfair competition. India instead offers up a menu of specific statutory options, common law torts and the equitable action against a breach of confidence, to satisfy its international obligations to prevent unfair competition. There have been two noteworthy developments in recent years: (i) the tort of malicious falsehood has gradually abandoned a strict malice requirement, such that (objectively assessed) disparaging advertising is now actionable; and (ii) an emerging right of publicity, to prevent image misappropriation, is taking shape but its foundations are unclear. One (non)development also deserves closer scrutiny. A claim drafting trend has emerged whereby plaintiffs petition courts to prevent ‘unfair competition’, or ‘misappropriation’. This implies that a nominate tort of unfair competition, or one of misappropriation, exists in Indian law. However, when directly approached to create a tort against misappropriation per se, Indian courts have declined this invitation, based on compelling reasons. Both litigants and courts need to be more careful in their use of such terminology. As things presently stand, there is no tort of unfair competition, nor of misappropriation, in Indian law.

Locating the Contours of Sustainability and Environmental Protection Within Competition Law in India: Swinging in Tandem or Isolation?

Environmental policy plays a major role in integrating environmental protection goals into economic policy areas. Environmental deterioration will proceed rapidly until this intersection is successfully achieved. The paper uses European Green Deal as a reference for fostering sustainable development goals through competition laws. This paper discusses sustainability in the context of the competition laws of various jurisdictions such as the European Union (EU), the United States (US), the United Kingdom (UK), and India. While highlighting conflicts around the intersection of competition law and environmental policies, this paper also provides their solution for making competition law environment-friendly. It suggests implementing such laws to promote sustainability and progress toward climate neutrality.

Cross Border Mergers and Competition Law in India

Cross-border mergers are becoming increasingly popular among companies looking to expand their business globally. In India, cross-border mergers are governed by the Companies Act, 2013, and the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. However, competition law is also a crucial aspect to be considered while assessing cross-border mergers. The Competition Act, 2002, applies to mergers and acquisitions that result in a substantial acquisition of shares, control or assets of an enterprise, or a merger or amalgamation of enterprises. The Competition Commission of India (CCI) is responsible for reviewing and approving such mergers to ensure that they do not lead to adverse effects on competition in the relevant market. In addition, the CCI may impose conditions on the parties to the merger to ensure compliance with the competition law. It is essential for companies to ensure that their cross-border mergers are in compliance with the competition law to avoid any legal implications.

Locating the Contours of Sustainability and Environmental Protection within Competition Law in India: Swinging in Tandem or Isolation?

Locating the Contours of Sustainability and Environmental Protection within Competition Law in India: Swinging in Tandem or Isolation?

An Overview of Competition Law in India: A Comprehensive Analysis

An Overview of Competition Law in India: A Comprehensive Analysis

Competition Law in India: The Progress of E-Commerce

Competition Law in India: The Progress of E-Commerce

Consumer protection under competition law highlighting relevant market issues under digital market

Competition law in India strives to protect and promote competition in the market. Along with this objective, competition law also tries to protect consumer interest in different aspects. Consumers are protected under the Consumer Protection Act, Still, when competition in the market affects consumers adversely, the consumers can claim relief under the Competition Act. In the present scenario, various case laws have been adjourned by CCI on the ground that they fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act and not Competition Law. Thus, it becomes necessary to understand the consumer protection aspect under the Competition law, and this article provides about the same. This paper analyses the dual purpose of competition law in protecting consumer interest and promoting competition in the market. It will help to evaluate the benefits available to the consumers in the traditional market as well as problems faced as a consequence of the development of technology with particular reference to issues about the definition of the relevant market in the digitalized world, which affects the consumers.

Analysis of NCLAT’s Functioning as Competition Law Appellate Tribunal

In this paper, we present a critical analysis of the functioning of the appellate authority of the Competition Commission of India (CCI). Specifically, we evaluate the performance of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) — the current appellate for competition law in India — by comparing and contrasting its functioning with that of the erstwhile Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT). We use data from publicly available sources such as annual reports of CCI, NCLAT’s website, etc., as well as replies to the Right to Information (RTI) applications construed and filed by the authors of this paper. We suggest a remedial orientation in this paper to enable a resolution of the hurdles in the present mode of appeals and move forward while minimising deliberations on the apportionment of fault for the present modalities.

The Interplay between Data Privacy and Competition Law in India

In today’s digital sphere, the impact of technology on consumers and competition has attained much significance. With the prominent technological advancements, data have gained an economic value due to the increased revenue accruing from data-related services,1 thereby making data protection a paramount concern.2 Privacy is also emerging as a non-price parameter of competition.3 Further, the economics of data also favours market concentration and dominance as noted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).4 Despite data evolving as arguably a key parameter of competition, there is a tension between Data Protection laws (‘DP laws’) and competition laws. A significant cause for such tension being that for the tension being that the DP laws prohibit the exploitation of users’ data, whereas the competition law promotes data being public to ensure the prevention of monopolistic behaviour. This article presents and analyses recent developments in Indian competition...

ROAD MAP OF EVOLUTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF COMPETITION LAW: INDIA

The Competition law & policy forms an inherent part of developing world to not only protect their domestic markets but also compete fairly and effectively in the international market. These policies have been very instrumental in fostering sustainable development as well as restricting anti-competitive behaviour which inhibits economic growth. The implementation of competition law must be in coherence with the level of overall development in the country since there is no one legal framework which would suit all the jurisdictions. The competition policy of India creates an active and viable environment for the industries to compete domestically as well as internationally with an aim to promote economic development using advanced technologies and an adequate capital. Hence the government must play an active role in promoting economic liberalization by focusing on various policies such as foreign direct investment, licensing of technology, intellectual property rights and eliminating trade barriers rather than just following the conventional principles of the competition law. The competition policy’s main concern is that the corporations with market powers are not able to harm the interests of consumer by anti-competitive practices. Although the competition law and competition policy goes hand in hand yet they can be distinguished. This article has the intention to portrait the evolution of the competition law in India. Why do we need such kind of law in India, what were the major reasons to bring MRTP and the road forward to Competition act?

Goals of Competition Law in India

In this paper the authors will delve into the jurisprudence behind the goal of competition law in India with respect to Structuralist School of thought and Chicago School of Thought. In the recent developments in The Competition Act, 2002 and influential scholarly debates around goals of competition law, Consumer Welfare as the only goal for competition law is a very vague and a complex method of approach. The origin of such jurisprudence comes from two main school of thoughts, namely, the Structuralist School of thought (Harvard) and Chicago School of thought. The former supports the structure to have multiple competitors in the market to avoid monopoly or oligopoly whereas the latter speaks highly of profit maximisation which leads to consumer welfare or wellbeing through its services. The authors will take into consideration of domestic and international courts’ interpretation and their inclination towards deeming consumer welfare as the focal goal of competition law. The highlights of above-mentioned schools of thought can be seen in the case of Google and its interpretation in the two jurisdictions: the USA and the EU. Bringing to light, the difference in the schema of interpretation of the goals of competition law within their respective market structures. An understanding of the development of Indian Competition Law and the holdings of other jurisdictions enable us to propose a juxtaposition of such goals in India- taking into account the the market and economical structures- whether a more suited theory could be employed in the Indian context.

Legal Treatment of Abuse of Dominance in Indian Competition Law: Adopting an Effects-Based Approach

Abuse of dominance investigations around the world are often form-based, primarily centred on the pre-requisite of dominance. This may lead to false positives or restrict innovation in today’s dynamic and complex markets. Accordingly, abuse of dominance enforcement requires a shift towards adopting an effects-based approach, weighing pro and anticompetitive effects and considering efficiency justifications. The European Union is increasingly moving in this direction, as is demonstrated by its case law that is analysed in this paper. The paper also explores competition law in India—traditionally a form-based jurisdiction for abuse of dominance investigations—and finds an encouraging trend towards an effects-based approach.

Foundations of Competition Law in India: Prospect and Retrospect

The Competition Act 2002 sets out certain principles keeping in view the economic development of the country and repeals the MRTP Act 1969. In this context few theoretical issues are: What is the importance of competition law? Why the MRTP Act became obsolete? What type of new legislative scheme has been adopted under the Competition Act 2002? What is the role of the Competition Commission of India and Appellate Tribunal? Why extra-territorial jurisdiction is recognised under the 2002 Act? Is there any difference among monopoly, oligopoly and the competition? What are the approaches that have been applied in explaining competition law? Is there any particular approach applied in India? This Article is primarily devoted to aforementioned aspects.

The interplay between consumer protection and competition law in India

The protection of the interests of consumers is a central aspect of all modern competition laws as well as a direct aim of consumer protection laws. However, despite being complementary in many ways, competition and consumer protection laws cover different issues and employ different methods to achieve their goals. While consumer protection rules are built upon the premise that consumers are the weaker party to transactions and should be directly protected for this reason in their dealings with traders through certain consumer rights, competition law only indirectly protects the consumers’ economic well-being by ensuring that the markets are subject to effective competition. This article explores the interplay between consumer protection and competition law in the Indian context with some comparison with the EU position, where relevant. After an examination of the relevant legislation and case law, the article finds that given that the mandate of the Competition Commission of India is to prevent practices having an adverse effect on competition, in cases of overlap between consumer protection and competition laws, the Authority should act only on the basis of adverse effects on competition. The treatment of ‘unfair trade practices’ is used to demonstrate the appropriateness of this approach.

Public Procurement: A Competition Perspective

Public procurement of goods and services accounts for 25–30 percentage of GDP in developing countries. Since this involves public resources, it is important to optimise efficiency of procurement which in turn is positively correlated with the level of competition in the market. Paradoxically, various factors make public procurement especially vulnerable to a host of anti-competitive practices. The article examines various anti-competitive practices that may potentially affect the efficiency of public procurement as well as ‘red flags’ in various stages of the bidding process that could possibly point to bid rigging. However, by properly designing the procurement process, risks of bid rigging can be significantly reduced. Data from various countries show huge savings to public treasuries resulting from implementation of public procurement reforms. The article also attempts to discuss the evolution of competition law in India over the last seven years of operation of the Competition Act, 2002. Apart from the crucial role of the Competition Authorities, the article underlines the need for procurers to be proactive. Effective public procurement reforms in India would require close cooperation among various stakeholders, such as the Department of Expenditure, Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), Competition Commission of India (CCI) as well as procurers.

Competition Law: Dominant Position and Its Abuse: Abuse of Dominant Position in US and EU

The concept of abuse of dominant position in US and EU has some basic differences and it is interesting to note that the competition law in India has seen a shift from more reliance on EU than US in dealing with abuse of dominance cases. This is quite evident from the fact that the concept of ‘monopolistic trade practices’ under the MRTP Act was more near to US law of ‘monopolisation’ while the concept of ‘abuse of dominance’ under the Competition Act is more nearer to the EU text in Article 102 which prohibits abuse of a dominant position. While there is a basic distinction in enforcement approach in EU and US, i.e. in US, there is a criminal enforcement of anti-trust laws while in EU it is administrative. India has followed the administrative model in EU.

Patents and competition law in India: CCI’s reductionist approach in evaluating competitive harm

The objective of this article is to examine the CCI's reasoning and approach in patent—related cases, in light of (i) the legislative framework governing competition and patent law in India, (ii) the economic theories that govern the intersection between competition law and patent law, and (iii) the manner in which competition agencies in comparative jurisdictions have dealt with similar agreements and conduct by patent holders. Section 1 of this article deals with an analysis of the distinction between sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act 2002, in light of the CCI's tendency to conflate issues pertaining to abuse of dominance and evaluation of anti-competitive agreement involving patents. Section 2 deals with constraints on pricing imposed in several CCI rulings. Section 3 deals with non-price licensing restrictions as constituting abuse of dominance. The article concludes by cautioning that CCIs approach in dealing with patent licensing arrangements risks hurting the dynamic nature of competition fostered in highly innovative markets and highlights the urgent need to develop a principle-based approach by focusing on competitive harm in dealing with the conduct of patent holders.