Commission Competition Act, 2002 has overriding effect over
other legislations for the time being in force.”
In the same case, FICCI filed information against United
Producers/Distributors Forum (UPDF) and others for market
cartel in films against the Multiplexes. In order to raise their
revenue, UPDF
had refused to
deal with
multiplex
owners. The
fact that
multiplex
business is 100
percent
dependent
upon films
hence, making
this deal to
come into the
category of
refusal to deal
and anticompetitive.
The UPDF and
others hold
almost 100
percent share
in Bollywood
film industry.
UPDF had
been indulged
in limiting and controlling supply of films in the market by refusal
to deal with Multiplexes which is the violation of Section 3(3) of
Competition Act 2002. CCI prima facie found there is
anticompetitive agreement and there is abuse of dominant
position also. So CCI directed Director General (DG) to inquire
into the matter. DG inquired into the matter and reported it to
be cartel. CCI issued a show cause notice. UPDF instead of
answering to show-cause notice, the complainant approached the
Bombay High Court. UPDF contended that films are subject to
copyright protection. Therefore Copyright board has the
jurisdiction to deal with matter. Furthermore, contended that for
exclusive license, only remedy is compulsory license available
under Copyright Act. So petitioner challenges the action taken by
the CCI on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Though, the issue
was discussed earlier in Kingfisher v. Competition Commission of
India. Considering the importance of the matter, Bombay High
Court discussed the matter in great detail. The court ruled Section
3(5) does not restrict the right of any person to sue for
infringement of patent, copyright, trademark etc. All the defences
which can be raised before copyright board can also be raised
before CCI. Hence the competition law does not bar application
of other laws.
Thus the TRIPs Agreement provides a basic framework of
intellectual property protection as well as enforcement of anticompetitive licensing practices in intellectual property. The IPRs
and competition law objectives are consistent and compatible
where the competition law intervention is required only when
there is an abuse of monopoly rights. It is important to notice that
more than 100 countries have
enacted competition laws and
at the time more than 159
countries have IP laws, and
both enforcing authorities
must have a role in IP and
competition law policy making,
especially in developing
countries. Moreover the
conflict and the struggle over
these two issues have created
a hazardous situation in the
pharmaceutical industry. Thus,
there is a great need for
guidance in the legislative
framework to suit the nature
of developing nations
particularly for India.