Here's a detailed and structured set of elaborative notes based on the iPleaders article on the
interplay between Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and Competition Law:
📚 Elaborative Notes: IPR and Competition Law
1. Introduction: The Tension and Harmony
IPR grants exclusive monopolistic rights to inventors or creators, fostering
innovation.
Competition law seeks to prevent monopolistic dominance and ensure a level playing
field.
The interplay arises because IPR can create dominance, while competition law seeks
to regulate it.
Despite the conflict, both aim for consumer welfare and economic growth.
2. Market Regulation Mechanisms
System Description
Determined by supply-demand; minimal state interference. May allow
Free Market
unfair pricing.
Regulated Governed by legal and institutional frameworks; curbs monopolies and
Market protects consumers.
3. Concepts and Origins
IPR: Evolved from the need to protect the rights of creators. Legal frameworks
developed to recognize intangible assets.
Competition Law: Emerged to address issues like collusion, price-fixing, and abuse
of market dominance.
4. Objectives of Each Law
Law Type Core Objective
IPR Encourage innovation, reward creativity, and offer exclusivity
Competition Law Prevent anti-competitive practices, promote consumer welfare
5. Points of Convergence and Divergence
Convergence:
IPR fosters innovation → promotes competition in the long run.
Licensing IP can boost access and competitiveness.
Divergence:
IPR grants monopolies; competition law curbs monopolistic power.
Abuse of IP rights (e.g., tying, excessive pricing) may violate competition norms.
6. Key Interfacing Provisions in Indian Law
Section 3 of Competition Act: Covers anti-competitive agreements (even IP-related).
Section 4: Prohibits abuse of dominance, including by IP holders.
Section 140 of Patents Act: Ensures IP licensing doesn't restrict competition.
7. Case Laws Demonstrating Interplay
Shamsher Kataria v. Honda Siel Cars Ltd. (2011): Auto manufacturers’ restrictive
clauses were held anti-competitive.
HT Media Ltd. v. Super Cassettes (2011): Refusal to license music rights held
abusive.
Monsanto Case (2018): High royalty charges and market control through IP rights
questioned under competition law.
8. Policy Trends and Recent Changes
Competition (Amendment) Bill, 2020: Strengthens CCI’s oversight on IP-related
market behaviors.
Judicial Approach: Increasing scrutiny on licensing practices, refusal to license, and
tying.
9. Resolving Conflicts
Courts emphasize doctrine of reasonableness.
Balancing tests between innovation rights and market freedom are applied.
Licensing obligations, fair use norms, and competition probes help bridge gaps.
10. Global Perspective
EU and US approaches allow IP holders to retain exclusivity but step in when
dominance is abused.
TRIPS Agreement acknowledges the need for balance between IP protection and
competition regulation.
✅ Conclusion
IPR and competition law, though inherently in tension, can function synergistically when
aligned with the common goal of economic and consumer welfare. Legal frameworks must
continue to evolve to ensure innovation is rewarded without compromising market fairness.
🔗 Read full article here: iPleaders – IPR and Competition Law
Would you like this formatted as a comparative table or infographic?
https://blog.ipleaders.in/interplay-competition-law-ipr/#Origin_of_IPR_and_Competition_Law
https://juriscentre.com/2024/04/20/the-interface-between-intellectual-property-rights-and-
competition-law/
https://www.jusscriptumlaw.com/post/interplay-between-ipr-rights-and-competition-law
