The Competition Act does not expressly require the Indian Competition Commission (ICC) to examine the supplier`s market share in assessing vertical restrictions. However, the ICC generally finds only vertical restrictions that raise concerns when imposed by companies with some market power. On several occasions, the ICC rejected allegations of vertical restrictions for which suppliers` market shares were insignificant. The ICC rejected allegations that the selling price of Vivo mobile device manufacturers in India was maintained because of weak (and declining) market share, weak sales and strong competition in the Indian smartphone market (Tamil Nadu Consumer Products Distributors Association versus Fangs Technology Private Limited (Case 15 of 2018). Similarly, has the ICC considered the presence of other market players because multi-brand competition in the rapidly changing consumer goods sector has not been affected (Ghanshyam Que Vij v Bajaj Corp Ltd – Gold (Case 68 of 2013) Under what circumstances does antitrust legislation relating to vertical restrictions apply to agreements between agents and key agreements in which a company agrees to provide certain services on behalf of a supplier against a commission-based payment? To our knowledge, the ICC has not assessed vertical territorial restrictions on online sales. These restrictions are expected to attract an analysis similar to that of offline sales. The Indian Competition Commission (ICC) appears to have been somewhat cautious about extending the benefits of the IP exemption to companies with vertical restrictions. First, the ICC appears to have interpreted the “reasonable” and “necessary” conditions very strictly and refused to extend the benefit of the IP exemption to vertical restrictions if the institution imposing such restrictions could protect its intellectual property rights through a less restrictive method. Second, the ICC read to the letter the text of the intellectual property exemption and refused to grant the benefit of the intellectual property exemption if the right was not strictly characterized by the six statutes covered by Section 3.5 of the Competition Act. > an intellectual property owner may impose “reasonable” “necessary” restrictions to protect intellectual property rights (section 3, paragraph 5, of the Competition Act); and > the prohibition of vertical restrictions does not limit a person`s right to export goods from India, as the agreement deals exclusively with the production, supply, distribution, control of goods or the provision of services for that export.
2.11 Are there specific rules for vertical IP agreements and, if so, how do those rules differ? 1.1 Which authorities or agencies review and enforce legislation on vertical agreements and the dominant behaviour of companies? A vertical chord is considered benign or beneficial if it can bring benefits by promoting efficiency gains. However, a dominant company must continue to demonstrate that its conduct is proportionate to the benefits it has obtained. 2.7 How are vertical agreements analyzed if one of the parties is vertically integrated at the same level as the other part (so-called “double distribution”)? Are these agreements treated as vertical or horizontal agreements? Are there general exceptions to cartel and abuse legislation for certain types of agreements with vertical restrictions? If so, please describe.