The competition law policy and practice find reference in the Indian law vide Articles 38 and 39 of the Constitution. It lays down the principles for promoting and securing social, economic and political justice for the people and maintaining social The duty is on the State to ensure the same. Additionally, the State is burdened with the duty to regulate the ownership of material resources and direct the control in the best way to address the common good with fulfillment of maximum objectives. This is to ensure and check the concentration of power in the hands of few, which leads to anti-competitive practices and accumulation of wealth in the hands of few. In order to fulfill the gaps in the MRTP act and counterbalance the challenges, Government in October 1999, appointed a High Level Committee to draft a new completion law. Consequently Competition Act, 2002, was enacted with robust provision and inclusion of TRIPS complying provisions too. S. 3 of the Competition Act, 2002 with the anti-competitive agreements. The interface between competition law and IPR can be easily traced by incorporation of S. 3(5) of the Act. It is essentially a blanket provision which acts as an exception for IPRs under S. 3(5) of the Act. This is done to accommodate innovations and thereby promote technologically advanced goods and products. However, it also regulates efficiently, the practice in order to check unreasonable practices of IPR under this provision. Thus, there are provisions for regulating such foul agreements and licenses under IPR that go against the spirit of the Competition Act, 2002. Provisions have been made to address any anti-competitive practice pertaining to IPR to be proved through the channel of abuse of dominant position as mentioned under S.4 of the Competition Act, 2002. Additionally, the Act also includes explicit categories like price fixing, geographical divisions, etc. that extends up to predatory pricing, tying-in arrangements and other allied subjects, if they lead to causing appreciable adverse impact on competition. 5.2. Critical Analysis in the Light of Judicial Precedents Since the emergence of MRTP Act and Competition Act, 2002, plethora of cases have emerged, laying down principles related to the subject matter of competition law and IPR. Anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominant position along with other sub heads
The competition law policy and practice find reference in the Indian law vide Articles 38 and 39 of the Constitution. It lays down the principles for promoting and securing social, economic and political justice for the people and maintaining social The duty is on the State to ensure the same. Additionally, the State is burdened with the duty to regulate the ownership of material resources and direct the control in the best way to address the common good with fulfillment of maximum objectives. This is to ensure and check the concentration of power in the hands of few, which leads to anti-competitive practices and accumulation of wealth in the hands of few. In order to fulfill the gaps in the MRTP act and counterbalance the challenges, Government in October 1999, appointed a High Level Committee to draft a new completion law. Consequently Competition Act, 2002, was enacted with robust provision and inclusion of TRIPS complying provisions too. S. 3 of the Competition Act, 2002 with the anti-competitive agreements. The interface between competition law and IPR can be easily traced by incorporation of S. 3(5) of the Act. It is essentially a blanket provision which acts as an exception for IPRs under S. 3(5) of the Act. This is done to accommodate innovations and thereby promote technologically advanced goods and products. However, it also regulates efficiently, the practice in order to check unreasonable practices of IPR under this provision. Thus, there are provisions for regulating such foul agreements and licenses under IPR that go against the spirit of the Competition Act, 2002. Provisions have been made to address any anti-competitive practice pertaining to IPR to be proved through the channel of abuse of dominant position as mentioned under S.4 of the Competition Act, 2002. Additionally, the Act also includes explicit categories like price fixing, geographical divisions, etc. that extends up to predatory pricing, tying-in arrangements and other allied subjects, if they lead to causing appreciable adverse impact on competition. 5.2. Critical Analysis in the Light of Judicial Precedents Since the emergence of MRTP Act and Competition Act, 2002, plethora of cases have emerged, laying down principles related to the subject matter of competition law and IPR. Anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominant position along with other sub heads
clash-_ipr_and_competition_law.docx