www.ijcrt.

org © 2021 IJCRT | Volume 9, Issue 7 July 2021 | ISSN: 2320-2882

Interplay between Intellectual Property Rights

and Competition Law in India
Rima Ghosh
Research Assistant, Center for Regulatory Studies, Governance and Public Policy,
West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata, India

Dr. Shova Devi

Assistant Professor, Amity Law School,
Amity University Uttar Pradesh (Lucknow campus), India
Abstract

Intellectual property Right (IPR) provides an exclusionary right that intent to exclude others from doing acts
that are offered as a bundle of rights over creation of human mind. The Right to exclude others has a
tremendous economic significance which impacts both the innovation and the access. Whereas, Competition
law is an instrument to intervene in market and correct market failures. It primarily seeks to encourage
competitors to compete against each other and thereby create an economically efficient free market access.
The interplay between IPR and Competitional law derived some interesting aspects. IPR allows the holder to
exercise his market power and competition law attacks unfair monopoly. However, there are common point
between the two laws being that both of them effectual balance. Further, India being a member of the WTO,
is under a commitment to structure the regime governing the connection between IPR and Competition law.
Considering all these aspects, this research work intends to understand the common thread that exists between
these two laws. This research work attempts to draw the relation between both the laws in the Indian Context
and aims to provide an ample understanding of the Interplay between Intellectual Property law and
Competition law in India.

Keywords: Intellectual property, Competition, Unfair, Market.

1.Introduction

Intellectual Property is the innovativeness of work by the human being and the main reason of its protection
is for the growth of the advancement of science and technology, arts, literature and other imagination works
to enforce and compensate the invention and the originality of works. That branch of law which guard the
importance of the same is known as Intellectual Property Law. Nations give statutory expression to economic

IJCRT2107043 International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT) www.ijcrt.org a289

www.ijcrt.org © 2021 IJCRT | Volume 9, Issue 7 July 2021 | ISSN: 2320-2882

rights of the creators in their creations.1 The premise of intellectual property rights is that recognizing and
honours the talented and researcher of intellectual works, augurs well for industrial and technical advancement
as it spurs ideation and original. It also infuses effectiveness and encourages competition in new products,
new markets and new technologies which is the life-breath of market driven economies; the meaningful
positive concussion of which is felt by consumer as well.

Competition Law is a law that fosters economic growth in a country especially in a country like India which
has a Mixed Economy. It ushers a free environment where there is a fair play and the market forces decide
the production of goods and services in every sector. It helps in the upbringing of a competitive and a non-
monopolistic market, which fosters economic efficiency and consumer welfare .At the very first instance if
we observe the two but over a period of time and with the shift that India has had in emerging as an Economic
power slowly and steadily, the importance of their convergence is being established in the World at large.

Competition Law refers to that law that secure competition in the market; it also actively inspects practices
that are dangerous to the competitive process. This law has been growing at an extortionate rate in just few
years. The goal is for the makeover in the economic actions across the world. Competition law is all about
economics and economic conduct Therefore competition law has been rendering as magna carta of
enfranchise enterprises. They are important to the conserve of economic liberty and the enfranchise enterprises
arrangement.2 The demand for competition law emerge because market can agonize from default and torture,
and various players can opportunity to anti-competitive activities such as cartels, abuse of dominance etc.
which adversely strike economic efficiency and consumer welfare. Competition is the engine of free
enterprises. Market economy achieve betters when there is competition in the market. Perfect competition
refers to an economic model that portray a hypothetical market from where demand and supply rule the most.
It is designed as a market equilibrium in which all resources are allocated and use adequately. From an
economist standpoint competition involves a approach of business rivalry between the firms that strive to win
consumer’s by obtaining the lowest level of cost and prices , developing new products or services or
achievement particular strengths, skills or other advantages to (CCI) to avert those malpractices that
announcement influence competition .Additionally, it was statute to heighten and endure competition in the
market as well as to cover the attractive of the consumers. Thus, it was statute to assure liberates and identical
trade amongst player in India markets and such other market combine therewith.

IPR are a category of intangible rights which protect several aspects of innovation and forms of human
creativity. However, it is distinctive from the concept of property rights and owes a fundamentally different
economic character. IPR provides an exclusionary right i.e. the tight to excludes others from doing act that re
offered as a part of a granted right. The right to exclude others has a tremendous economic significance which
impacts both the innovation and the access. On the other hand, Competition law and is an instrument to
intervene in market and correct market failures. It primarily seeks to encourage competitors to compete against

1
Law relating to Intellectual Property Rights Second Edition by V K Ahuja
2
United States v Topco Associates Inc.[1972]405 US 596 (610)
IJCRT2107043 International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT) www.ijcrt.org a290
www.ijcrt.org © 2021 IJCRT | Volume 9, Issue 7 July 2021 | ISSN: 2320-2882

each other and thereby create an economically efficient free market access. The interplay between IPR and
Competitional law derived some interesting aspects. IPR allows the holder to exercise his market power and
competition law attacks unfair monopoly. Further, India being a member of the WTO, is under a commitment
to structure the regime governing the connection between IPR and Competition law. This research work
intends to understand the common thread that exists between these two laws. IPR being the law which grants
the exclusive monopoly rights to an individual over his/her products, however, on the contrary, Competition
Law restricts monopolistic trade practices in the market. Still the common point between the two laws being
that both of them effectual balance between the conflicting of the parties and reconcile the evident anomalies
in the socio-economic system. Considering all these aspects, the research work attempts to draw the relation
between both the laws in the Indian Context. To highlights the various aspects, leading case laws have been
referred and discussed.

2. The TRIPs Agreement, Intellectual Property Rights and Competition Law: Understanding the
International Perspective.

Intellectual Property is a term referring to a number of distinct types of reality of mind for which property
rights are appreciate and the corresponding fields of law .Under the IRP law , owners are granted certain
elegant rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary and artistic work, revelation and
inventions ,and words ,phrases, symbols and designs. Intellectual Property is a nonphysical property which
stems from, or is identified as, and whose value is based upon some concept. Intellectual property
encompasses the protection offered by the legal regimes of various patent, copyright, trademarks, designs and
trade secrets. Grant of intellectual property is a mode of furnish incentive to the introducer of his imagination.
Further, incentive in the form of temporary monopoly rights enforce inventor to disclose his aim to the public.
The advantages of Intellectual property led the nations come up with international treaties for the safeguard
of different classes of intellectual property, like the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial property
1883, Berne Convention for the safeguard of Literary and Artistic Works 1886. Madrid Agreement 1891. The
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is the global forum for intellectual property services, policy,
information, and co-operation in contemporary time as part of the United Nations. The Agreement on Trade
Related (TRIPs Agreement) of the WTO Treaty evolved minimum standards for the safeguard of intellectual
property for the member states to combine in their municipal laws

One of the fundamental rules of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual property Rights
(TRIPS) negotiated during the Uruguay Round is the recollection of the role of intellectual property safeguard
in encourage economic growth. The agreement has introduced some minimum standards of preservation and
implementation of IPRs in the international dealing process which is unalterable for all member countries.
The competitive balances sought to be attained by TRIPs are contained in the intention and notion.

Firstly, members may, in express or redrafting their laws, embrace appropriate measures to avert the abuse of
IPRs, constraint of deal or international transfer of technology
IJCRT2107043 International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT) www.ijcrt.org a291
www.ijcrt.org © 2021 IJCRT | Volume 9, Issue 7 July 2021 | ISSN: 2320-2882

Secondly, it is an interpretative formula in favors o of adopting measures essential for prevent monopoly
misuse by IPR holders and anticompetitive licensing arrangements, which is put into dormant by Article 40
(a lex specialist provision to the general provision in Article 8.2), which establishes a regime for managing
such exercise.

It is explicitly stated that the preservation and enforcement of IPRs should present to the preferment of
technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology (Article 7 and 8 of the TRIPs
Agreement). IPRs should confer to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge
and in a manner admiring to social and economic benefit and to a balance of rights and commitment.

These TRIPs objectives and proposition which seek to attain competitive counterpoise are provided in Articles
8(2), 31 (K) and 41. These Articles set the armature for the TRIPs Agreement ad have been lauded as being
consistent with developing countries fascinate.

Article8 (2) provides that: Appropriate measures, provided that they are consistent with the provisions of this
Agreement, may be needed to prevent the misuse of intellectual property rights by right holder or the resort
to custom which unreasonably restrain deal or adversely harm the international transfer of technology. This
provisions specially prohibits: (1) misuses of IPRs by right holders ;(2) custom that unreasonably restrain
deal; (3) process that adversely impact the international technology transfer.

Article 40 of TRIPs provide for control of anti-competitive practices in contractual licenses:

 Members agree that some licensing custom or conditions pertaining to intellectual property rights
which restrain contest may have harmful consequences on deal and may impede the transfer and
dissemination of technology.
 Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent Members from specifying in their legislation licensing
process or conditions that may in particular cases constitute a misuse of intellectual property rights
having a harmful consequence on contestant in the relevant market. As provided above, a Member
may adopt, consistently with the other provisions of this Agreement, suitable measures to prevent or
conduct such process, which may include for example grant back conditions, conduct preventing
demanding to validity and coercive package licensing.in the light of the relevant laws and
administration of that member.3

Article3 (k) impart for remedy of compulsory licensing available to correct unilateral anti-
competitive process. The WIPO Development Agenda4 adopted 45 recommendations in 2007
including interface between intellectual property rights and competition issues. They are:
 Recommendation No. 7: Forward measures that will help countries deal with intellectual property
related anti – competitive process, by providing technical co –operation to developing countries,

3
TRIPs Agreement , Article 40(1) and Article 40 (2)
4
Available at: http//www.wipo.developmental /recommendations/html accessed 4 th Feb 2020.
IJCRT2107043 International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT) www.ijcrt.org a292
www.ijcrt.org © 2021 IJCRT | Volume 9, Issue 7 July 2021 | ISSN: 2320-2882

especially LDCs, at their request, in order to better understand the interface between IPRs and
competition polices.
 WIPO’s legislative assistance in norm-setting activities relating to competition and IPR- related
competition flexibilities.
 Pro-competitive IPR licensing process.
 Favorable circumstances within the WIPO for exchanges of information and experience on IPR-
related competitive aftermath.

3. Interplay between IPR and Competition Law

India has been an independent country and took initiatives towards the protection of intellectual property
rights. It has implemented several laws for the whether it may be for compliances to various international
treaties /conventions or of its own for the protection and growth of intellectual property rights. A small attempt
has been made to understand some of the initiatives implemented by India towards the protection of
intellectual property rights.

Intellectual property law and Competition law are regarded as the two important branches of law which works
hand in hand to discipline the market with the same objective of consumer welfare. So therefore, it can be
said that the Intellectual Property Rights and Competition Regulations are inter related to each other. In earlier
days, intellectual property and competition law were often considered as like poles of magnet that repel each
other. At this consequence of this relation between the two, the intellectual property rights regime was
considered to be creating monopolies to spur innovation, while the main concern of competition law is to
eliminate monopolies. In contrast to this, it has been realized that both works in tandem and have
complementary roles in driving innovation in today’s technologically roles in dynamic market. The former
i.e., the intellectual property rights provide an exclusives rights within an exiting market to produce and sell
its products, services or technology that result from some form of intellectual creation qualifying specifying
requirements. These inventions and creation are by several IPRs such as patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade
secrets or sui generis forms of protection. Thus, IPRs designate boundaries, within which competitors may
exercise their right.5 The essential attribute of grant of intellectual property rights is the ‘right of exclusion’,
which means the intellectual property right owner can exercise his rights to the exclusion of the whole
universe. But the later one i.e. competition law, its main aim at attaining maximum possible production of
resources and best possible allocation of the same.

Intellectual property protection plays a key role in the innovation technologies based on the incentive theory.
At the same time, the competition law and policy should provide the classical economic theory of social
welfare or in the words of famous 18th century thinker, Jeremy Bentham, who developed the utilitarian theory,
propounds “the greatest good for the greatest number”.6 Competition law considers monopoly as detrimental

5
Keith E. Maskus and Mohammad Lahouel, ‘Competition Policy and Intellectual Property Rights in Developing Countries :
Interested in Unilateral Intitiatives and a WTO Agreement’ (1999)
6
Avalable at: http:/www.utilitarianism philosophy .com/jeremybentham.eng.html, accessed 24th April 2020.
IJCRT2107043 International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT) www.ijcrt.org a293
www.ijcrt.org © 2021 IJCRT | Volume 9, Issue 7 July 2021 | ISSN: 2320-2882

to the market tries to bring down allocate and produces efficiency, because it is not constrained by competitive
forces market to bring down price and cost to the lowest well. Thus, the monopolies will become inefficient
and as consequence the economic resources will be accumulated with the monopolist. By this it means that a
monopolistic behavior in the market is considered as fundamentally objectionable. The economic resources
available in the society should be distributed equally to everybody so that everyone is benefitted without
causing loss to anybody. Intellectual property protection provides incentives to the inventor for disclosing the
invention to the society, so that it can be used by the society after the expiry of the term of protection. But this
monopoly, for even a small period, cannot be tolerated if the monopolist abuses the market for his advantage.
In this matter comes the interaction between competition law and intellectual property. The main and prior
object of both the laws is to benefit of the society. The application of intellectual property rights to competition
matters are one of the most complicated issues in the competition field.7 Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs)
protection has got serious attention in the field of technologically advanced contemporary world due to many
reasons. Various nations in the world are giving more attention to IP protection due to compulsion of the
international agreement, the Trade Related Aspects of the Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) within the
framework of WTO. Competition law and policy focused on avoidance of market domination by different
means like abuse of dominant position, price fixing cartels and undue concentrations.8

IPRs are seen as an incentive to innovate, An IPR confers exclusive rights on their owner. They are granted
as a reward for the efforts the person or company has put into the invention or innovation. Competition Law
seeks to promote innovation and efficiency in the economy. Competition Law is as keen as intellectual
Property law to promote research and development and to encourage innovation. 9 Apparently both
competition law and IPRs are tend to serve the same purpose, but they differ in method and approach. IPRs
grant monopoly to the innovator or creator of the work, which excludes others from using the IP – protected
product or service, whereas competition law strives to keep markets open for more and more players to
innovate and grow. The difference in methods and approach adopted by competition law and IP laws at time
leads to a conflict between the two.

Since grant of IPRs is essential for promoting sciences and useful arts and competition law for efficiency and
innovation, it is important to reach a balance through a trade –off between the incentive to invest and freedom
of other to exploit the protected work. The tradeoff may be justified on the ground that competition in
innovation is widely thought to be more important (known as dynamic efficiency) than competition from
someone providing the same product (known as static efficiency).10

7
Josef Drexl, Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Competition, (Edward Elgar Publishing Cheltenham UK, 2010), p
. XV.
8
UNCTAD, Objectives of Competition Law and Policy. Towards a Coherent Strategy for Promoting Competition and
Development, Note by UNCTAD Secretariat.
9
W.K Tom and J.A. Newberg . “Antitrust and Intellectual Property : From Separate Sphere to Unified Field” 66 Antitrust L.J
1767 (1997-98)
10
V. Korah , “Competition Law and IPRs “ in V. Dhall (ed) , Competition Law Today: Concepts, Issues and Law in practice 129
IJCRT2107043 International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT) www.ijcrt.org a294
www.ijcrt.org © 2021 IJCRT | Volume 9, Issue 7 July 2021 | ISSN: 2320-2882

IPRs and Competition can be seen as two sides of the same coin. It shares common objectives, achieved
through different names. The relation between the IPRs and Competition Law can be traced in the following
areas.

The interplay between competition and intellectual property law has an essential aftermath on market. The
two laws operate in totally two guidance. Intellectual Property Laws provide negative right provides a stimulus
to the inventor and reward him as an incentive for his imagination. The basic aim of intellectual property
rights is to stimulate invention and produce new products and processes. This Intellectual Property can
enhance competition in the market. On the hand, competition regulates and safeguards the interests of the
inventor and of the technologies as a follow-up action to the invented technology by facilitating through
licensing procedures.11

Competition law maximizes social benefit by condemning monopolies while intellectual property does the
same by granting temporary monopolies .The condition is that intellectual property law should provide
economically meaningful monopolies .Otherwise, competition law which by itself does not condemn the mere
possession of monopoly power, but rather certain exercises of or efforts to obtain it, might be allowed to
interfere with the monopoly.12

Under the competition laws, monopoly rights per se are not prohibited but misuse, of monopoly right is forbid.
During this age of globalization ,both intellectual property and competition law are trying to work in tandem
together acknowledging their roles and responsibilities in the process of transformation. The duty of
competition law is to see that licensing activities of intellectual property law of a company is not abusive and
has a precompetitive and a favorable effect on the market

IN FICCI- Multiplex Association v United Producers Distributors Forum 13, there was a collective decision
of the opposite parties’ producers and distributors of films not to release films to the multiples with a view to
pressurize the multiplexes into accepting the terms of revenue sharing ratio.

The purpose of forming United Producers and Distributors Forum (UPDF) was extracting better revenue
sharing ratios from multiplexes. UPDF issued notices instructing all producers and distributors, including
those who were the members of UPDF, not to release any new films for the purpose of exhibition at the
multiplexes. In this case, Competition Commission of India held that UPDF entered into a cartel like activity
since it had the ability to control the release of films since it had a 100 per cent market share, The CCI went
further to analyze Sec 3(5) (i) to determine the unreasonableness.

Since a feature film is considered to be a bundle of copyrights to make copies, sell or give on hire or
communicate a film in public, the question arises whether the right to sell or give on hire or communicate the
film in public includes also the right not to sell or give on hire . It has to be noted that copyright does not

11
K.D . Raju , The Intellectual Property Rights and Competition Law – A Comparative analysis (1st edn, Eastern Law House 2014)
12
Kumar Jayant and Abhir Roy , “Competition Law in India” (1 st edn, Eastern Law House 2008)
13
Case no 01 of 2009,decided on 25th May 2011
IJCRT2107043 International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT) www.ijcrt.org a295
www.ijcrt.org © 2021 IJCRT | Volume 9, Issue 7 July 2021 | ISSN: 2320-2882

grant a market power to the holder since there is a difference between the bargaining powers between
individual copyright owners vis-à-vis collective licensing through copyright societies.

The CCI had correctly decided that UPDF had restricted the supply of films to multiplexes was an anti-
competitive act under Section 3 (3) of the Competition Act 2002. Analysis of the case reveals that the members
of the UPDF were engaged at different levels of the business such as production and distribution, since
producers and distributors are not at the same level of business, they are not competitors and hence it shall
fall under vertical agreement.14

In Amir Khan Production Private Limited v. Union of Indi,15 Federation of India Chamber of Commerce
and Industry filed information against United Producers /Distributors Forum (UPDF) and others for market
cartel in films against the multiplexes. Despite knowing the multiplex business is 100% dependent on films,
UPDF refused to deal with multiplex owners. The UPDF and others hold almost 100% share in the Bollywood
film industry. UPDF was indulged in limiting /controlling supply of films by refusing to deal with the
multiplexes which are clearly violation of Section 3 (3) of the Competition Act 2002.

The Competition Commission of India (i.e. the CCI) found that there is an anti-competitive agreement and
that there is a dominant position also. So the CCI directed the Director General (hereinafter called as DG) to
inquire into the matter and submitted a report that there is cartel . UPDF instead of answering to show-cause
notice approached the Bombay High Court contending that films are subject to copyright protection 16 and the
Copyright Board has the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Moreover, it was contended that for exclusive
license, only remedy is compulsory license available under Copyright Act.

The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition stating Section 3(5) of Competition Act, 2002 provides that
Section 3(1) shall not take away the right to sue for infringement of patent, copyright, trademark etc. The
defenses can also be raised before the Competition Commission of India which can be raised before the
Copyright.

In another case Singhania and Partners LLP v Microsoft Corporation (1) Pvt, Ltd17, the petitioner ordered
with Microsoft for Windows Operating systems and Office 2007 from a Microsoft distributor. According to
the direction of the Microsoft, the petitioner arranged software for their LLP business and reimburse the
advance that was needed by the consumer direction. After reimburse the advances amount, Microsoft
enlightened the petitioner that they can purchaser only volume licenses and not Original Equipment
Manufacturer (OEM) licenses which are only obtainable to a person who acquire a brand-new machine. The
volume licenses were dual the consignment of OEM licenses. Claims of the petitioners were that dissimilar
dealers of Microsoft charges unlike fare for the similar product and thus the opposite party artificially
overruled the market. Microsoft having market shares of 90% hold a dominant position in the market. The

14
Ravikant Bharadwaj , KD .Raju and M. Padmavati , ‘Determing unreasonable use intellectual property rights in anti-competitive
Agreements in India ‘ (2013) I.C.C.L.R. 2013
15
2010(112) Bom LR3778
16
The Copyright Act, 1957 ,s 13(1) (b) and Sec 14 (1) (d) (ii)
17
Case no 36/2010, decided by the Commission on 22.06.2011
IJCRT2107043 International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT) www.ijcrt.org a296
www.ijcrt.org © 2021 IJCRT | Volume 9, Issue 7 July 2021 | ISSN: 2320-2882

petitioner being obligatory to acquire volume licenses at dual the fares of OEM licenses consignment to
prejudiced value of the rate under Section 4(2)(a)(ii0of the Competition Act2002.

Microsoft ‘s contention was that it licenses its product through three main channels of dealing out like OEM,
Volume licenses and Retail Chain. Further, it has to safeguard its Intellectual Property Rights and prevent
illegal reproduction of its products. Moreover, its connection with the supplier and trader is self-sufficient and
does not generate any principal agent connection. It exchanges its product /licenses to its trader or supplier on
a principal to principal basis. Further, it contended that OEM licenses are different in nature than those
purchased through other channels. Finally, Microsoft’s agreement with the OEMs does not require that OEMs
can fix Windows directly on the PC. OEMs are at liberty to distribute PCs with non-Microsoft software or
without software at all.

On the other instances, the petitioner contend that separate royalty impose for separate licenses is an approach
that is embrace by Microsoft to continue its monopoly in the market under the snatch of licensing policy and
intellectual property rights safeguard. They further assert that the licensing policy of Microsoft is nothing but
an exaggerated device for continuation in the market and harsh rule over its distribution system responsible
for unfair prices in the market and thus infringe section 3(4) (e) of the Act.

The Competition Commission has not found any apparent evidence showing the charging separate prices for
the similar product under separate kind of licenses are justified and familiar to the market. The Commission
did not find any material to show that due to Microsoft’s dominant position rivalries were driven out of market.
However, Mr. R. Prasad’s diverge opinion is significant. He says that the Commission should look into all
factors which are anti-competitive in nature, even though they are not part of the knowledge provided by the
petitioner. There is a probability of Microsoft engage in a dominant role since it grip 80% of the market share
of the operating systems.

Moreover, the OEM license is accessible only through manufactures, FPP for individual propose or buy for 5
or less PCs for Volume license and glorification. It generates a puzzle circumstances for a purchaser who plan
to purchase more than 5 PCs. The only choice left is to go for OEM which generates acquiring of OEM and
continuing monopoly of the Microsoft in Operating system. Finally, Microsoft imposes a much marginal cost
in China and over price in other countries which hamper competition in the market. Such cases were filed in
the United States in the State of Lowa and California and Microsoft was instructed to repay the separate to
volume licenses for misuse monopoly power.

In Shams her Kat aria and Honda Siel cars and others18, Shamher Kataria (Informant) file the
documentation under Section 19 (1) (a) of the Act in January, 2011 antagonist towards Honda Siel Cars India
Ltd, Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd and Fiat India Automobiles Pvt. Ltd, proclaim anti-competitive practices in
regard of sale of spare parts of these companies. Depending on implementation in European Union (EU) and

18
Case no 03/2011 of Competition Commission of India
IJCRT2107043 International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT) www.ijcrt.org a297
www.ijcrt.org © 2021 IJCRT | Volume 9, Issue 7 July 2021 | ISSN: 2320-2882

the United States of America (United States), Informant profess that car manufactures in India were
accounting over prices for spare parts and maintenance services than their associate overseas.

Moreover, there was absolute limitation on attainable of technological instruction, diagnostic tools and
software programs demand for maintenance and renovate the automobiles to sovereign renovate shops. The
Informant has further reported that the limitation on the accessible of real spare parts and the technical
knowledge that are in necessitate to constructively renovate, maintenance the automobiles manufactured by
the particular Opposite Parties (OP) is not a confine phenomenon.

The Commission precede complete commandment in the following degree under section 27 of the Act which
are as follows: -

 The parties are thereby administering to directly terminate and refrain from humor in performance
which has been found to be in infringement of the provisions of the Act.
 Ops are administering to set in a position a functional system to prepare the spare parts and diagnostic
tools comfortably accessible through a well-organized system.
 Ops are administered to permit to promote or sell spare parts in the open market without any
limitations, including on fare. OESs will be authorize to sell the spare parts directly on their own label
name if they so desire. Where the OPs confine intellectual property rights on some parts, they may
impose royalty/fees through contracts safely drafted to make certain that they are not infringement of
the competition Act, 2002.
 The Ops will place no limitations on the performance of individualistic service man.
 The OPs may progress and performance suitable systems for instruction of individualistic service man,
and also accelerate effortless accessible of diagnostic tools. Assigning settlement may also be
contemplate for contingent upon technical support and training certificates on amount basis.
 The OPs may also work for systematize of greater in number of parts in such an approach that they
can be used across separate brands, as in types, batteries etc. at present, which would consequence of
payment and also give more alternative to consumers as well as service man.
 OPs are administering not to force a blanket state of condition that assurance would be neutralize if
the consumer assist of service of any self –reliant individual maintenance man. But the required
preserve may be in place guard and reliable point of view, OPs can nullify the assurance for that extent
that harm may occur due to faulty renovate work beyond their own working system and situation can
advocate such circumstances.
 OPs are administer to make accessible in public domain , and also host on their websites, knowledge
regarding the spare parts , their MRPs , presentation for accessible over the counter , and details of
matching standard option continuation costs, statutes related to warranty , other knowledge that may
relate to entire promotion of consumer premier and urge for fair competition in the market.

IJCRT2107043 International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT) www.ijcrt.org a298

www.ijcrt.org © 2021 IJCRT | Volume 9, Issue 7 July 2021 | ISSN: 2320-2882

The Competition has further said that the OPs have infringed the statutes of the section 3 & 4 of the Act. Anti-
competitive prevails by the opposite parties influence a great number of consumers in the country approximate
to be around 2 crores. Moreover, the anti-competitive behavior of the opposite parties has imitated the
extension of spare parts and self- relevant individualistic service man segment of the economy to its entire
prospective, the payment of consumers, service man, and traders. There may be take in consideration that the
prepossessing market for the automobile producers and other OPs rather made consumer- friendly dedication
in other dominion such as Europe, that they are unsuccessful to embrace alike implementation in India
rather it could have run in higher way in remarkably diminish their present anti-competitive behavior. The
Commission urges penance of 2% of total turnover in India of the opposite parties.

With the help of above discussion, the study has drawn the link between IPR and competition law. The study
of competition law and intellectual property helps in understanding the vital effect on the market from the
legal point of view. Markets in general are governed by different regulatory mechanisms and the sole purpose
is to strike a reasonable balance between the conflicting interests among the various stakeholders. It envisages
ensuring that a balance is maintained with reference to the basic needs of the consumers as well as that of the
entrepreneurs.

4. Conclusion

In this age of globalization, both intellectual property and competition law are trying to work in tandem
together acknowledging their roles and responsibilities in the process of innovation. Intellectual Property
Right and Competition Law have been drawn to the fact that IPR is a right whereas Competition Law is a
legislation which acts as an artificial hand over the market operation. IPR is something which the state grants
the inventor or it is reward which the State provides to the creator of any product to exploit commercially his
creation for a limited period of time. It seems that these two laws are of conflicting in nature but they are not
as we find from the above study that these two laws complement each other by backing up when one is abused.
Competition Law attempts to provide a wider choice to the consumers and it seeks to balance the right of
manufactures and the consumers by providing profits and quality product and at a reasonable price,
respectively. IPR also seeks to provide the manufacture his reward and at a reasonable price, respectively.
IPR also seeks to provide the manufacture his reward in being the sole creator of the product, which should
also be for the public benefit. The dominant position offered by IPR is per se not violating the Competition
policies but abuse of that position is. In a nutshell, it can be concluded that both these laws have the common
objective but their ways to achieve it are different. And their regulatory mechanisms strive to maintain an
equilibrium between the free play of monopoly rights and interests of the society.

IJCRT2107043 International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT) www.ijcrt.org a299

www.ijcrt.org © 2021 IJCRT | Volume 9, Issue 7 July 2021 | ISSN: 2320-2882

5. Reference

 K.D Raju, The Intellectual Property Rights and Competition Law- A comparative analysis (1st edn,
Eastern Law House 2014)
 Kumar Jayant and Abir Roy, ‘Competition Law in India’ (1st end, Easter Law House 2008)
 Richard Whish and David Bailey, Competition Law (Oxford University Press, New york, 2012)
 V.K. Ahuja, Law relating to Intellectual Property Rights (2nd end, Lexis Nevis 201)
 Competition Law of the EC and UK, Mark Furse, Sixth Edition, Oxford University Pres.
 J Ghosh, ‘Emerging Trends in ‘Digital Environment’ Under The Indian Copyright Regime’ Journal of
Intellectual Property Law, Centre for Intellectual Property Rights, Nirma University, First Issue,
(2015), pp. 1-16
 T. Ramppa, Competition Law in India (3rd edn, oxford 2014)
 J.K. Das, Intellectual Property Rights (Ist edn , Kamala Law House , Kolkata 2008)
 0(1st edn , Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd 2010).
 Govaere, I ., The Use and Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights in E.C. Law, (3rd edn, Sweet
&Maxwell London 1999)
 GJ Stigler, The Theory of Price (1st edn, Macmilian New York 1966)
 Richard Whish, Competition Law: Safeguarding the consumer interest (2nd edn, Butterworts 2003)
 Lionel Bently and Brad Sherman, Intellectual Property Law (1st edn, Oxford University Press 2003)
 Steven Ander man and Ariel Ezrachi, Intellectual Property and Competition Law New Frontiers,
(Oxford University Press, New York, 2011)
 Eugene Buttigieg, Competition Law: Safeguarding the consumer interest (2nd edn Wolters Kluwer
2009).
 Competition Law Today –Concepts, Issues, and the Law in Practice, edited by Vinod Dhall, Oxford
University Press.
 S. Chakravarthy, New Indian Competition Law on the Anvil, RGICS Working Paper Series No. 22,
2001(New Delhi, 2001),
 Interaction Between Intellectual Property and Competition Laws by Maximiliano Santa Cruz
Scantlebury and Pilar Trivelli January 2016
 Crossroads of Regimes –competition Law and Intellectual Property Rights by Rahul Goel
 Analytical Study of the Concept of the concept of Tie-in Arrangement in India by Sujata Mukherjee.
 A Quest for Convergence with India Competition Law by Cyril Alrol and Samridh Bharadwaj

IJCRT2107043 International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT) www.ijcrt.org a300