Interface between competition law and IP is a very new area in India. As there is only one pertinent case related to interface between competition law and IP in India. This case is FICCI Multiplex Association v. United Producers and Distributors Association. The CCI order of this case is available Here. This case is related to refusal to license a product film which is IP protected.
Defendant contend that CCI does not have jurisdiction to deal with this issue as it is copyrighted material. Regarding jurisdiction in case of Amir Khan Private Ltd. v. CCI Bombay High court held that CCI has the power to deal with the this case.
CCI in this case felt the problem how to deal with an IP matter. CCI was cautious to deal with an IP matter. They pointed out the ambiguity in the provision Section 3(5)i of Competition Act 2002. Section 3(5)i provides that IP owner can impose reasonable restriction to protect its intellectual property. Bombay High Court in Amir Khan case opined that reasonable restriction provision is to ensure that IP owner can file a case for the violation of Intellectual Property, so that said infringer do not take the plea of anti-competitive activity and escape liability under IP law.
On the other hand CCI on the safe side discussed the Copyright scope and came to conclusion that the said issue is out of rights provided under Copyright Act 1957 so this matter can be decided by CCI.
This order does not set a right precedent relating to interface between competition law and IP in India. As the commentator such as Mark Lemley condemn the IP scope doctrine by the way of giving immunity to IP within is subject matter. He argues for antitrust treatment of IP if it is anti-competitive.
I argue for the strong application of Competition law as well as IP law to increase innovation and competition culture in India.
No comments:
Post a Comment