Introduction

There has been a constant scuffle between Intellectual Property Law and Competition Law. Competition Law focuses on creating and maintaining a healthy Competition in the Market by preventing and disallowing anti-competitive activities. Intellectual Property Law provides for protection and exclusive rights to the Proprietor of Intellectual Property, thus creating a dominance or monopoly in the market. Though, there exists a contradiction between these Laws, one must apply the Doctrine of Harmonized Construction to achieve the maximum level of Consistency and avoid the construction leading to inconsistency.

Objective of the Legislations

The aim of the Competition Law is to promote healthy and fair Competition in the market. The Act seeks to achieve its objectives by prohibiting anti-competitive agreements, preventing abuse of dominance and creating awareness by imparting training. Intellectual Property Laws are drafted to grant protection to the people who take steps to create invention, innovation and new techniques. It provides protection and exclusive rights to the Proprietor. However both legislations have common objective to facilitate Consumer welfare and protection and to provide opportunities for Competition, Growth and Innovation.

 Statutory Analysis

• Section 3 of Competition Act talks about Anti Competitive Agreements. It prohibits all the agreements which have or likely to have adverse effects of Competition in the market.
• But Section 3(5) provides that nothing in Section 3 shall apply to Patents, Trademarks, Copyright, Design, etc. protection granted under Intellectual Property Law.
• Section 4 of Competition Act talks about Abuse of Dominance by some market players. However at the same time, Competition Law does not prohibit the Dominance but Abuse of it by exploitative ways.
• On the other hand, when it comes to IP Law, TRIPS Agreement provides for prevention of Abuse of dominant position by the IP Holders in the market. Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement talks about Compulsory Licensing by Government. Compulsory Licensing prevents anti-competitive agreements, thus complementing the provisions of Competition Law in the interest of the public at large.

Judicial Analysis

Case:  Aamir Khan Productions Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India[1]

Facts:  UPDF (United Producers/Distributors Forum) and others formed a market Cartel in Films against Multiplex Owners. Since Multiplex Owners are totally dependent on the Films, this cartel came under Anti-competitive agreement. Thus CCI directed an enquiry into the matter, followed by which CCI also concluded the existence of abuse of dominance on behalf of UPDF, which was reported as a Cartel. CCI issued a show-cause notice to UPDF. But instead of replying to the same UPDF went to the High Court contending that the Films possess copyright protection and thus the Copyright Board has the jurisdiction in the respective matter.

The Court ruled that, Section 3 does not restrict the protection for infringement of IPR and hence CCI has the jurisdiction in all the matters which come under the jurisdiction of Copyright Board. Thus CCI has the power to deal with IPR matters.

Conclusion

Thus, Intellectual Property Law and Competition Law are not conflicting in nature but prove to be remedial and compatible for each other. Both legislations are complimentary and must be interpreted in a harmonized fashion. To minimize the contradiction further following steps can be taken –

1. Guidance to interpret Legislative provisions.

2. Intervention of Laws whenever necessary (Abuse of Dominance by Patent Holder- Compulsory Licensing)

3. Parallel understanding to secure a middle way in order to fulfill the objectives of both the Legislations.

BY

POOJA PATIL

B.A. L.L.B

ILS LAW COLLEGE, PUNE

---

[1] The High Court of Bombay- Writ petition no. 358 along with 526 of 2010