Select Your Location
The conflict between Intellectual property rights (IPR) and competition law arises because IPR laws grant exclusive rights to the intellectual property owner. In contrast, competition laws aim to prevent anti-competitive practices and ensure a level playing field for all market participants. This conflict is particularly evident in cases where the exercise of IPR by a dominant market player can lead to anti-competitive effects in the market, such as the exclusion of competitors or exploitation of consumers.
Intellectual property rights include Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks, and Trade Secrets. These rights grant the owner exclusive control over the intellectual property’s use, production, and distribution for a certain period. The rationale behind IPR is to incentivise innovation and creativity by providing a legal framework that enables the creators of intellectual property to earn profits from their work.
On the other hand, Section 3(5)(i) of the Competition Act, 2002 deals with Intellectual property rights in Competition Law. The section excludes IPR from restrictive trade practices and attempts to resolve some contradictions. This is because intellectual property protection is, in fact, necessary as it is a prerequisite for innovation, which is why most laws, including Competition Law, give priority to IPR protection and seek to prevent anti-competitive practices that may harm consumers or restrict competition. The objective of competition law is to promote fair competition in the market, prevent the abuse of dominant positions, and ensure that consumers have access to a range of goods and services at competitive prices. Competition law applies to all market participants, regardless of size or market share.
The conflicts between Intellectual property rights and competition law arise when the exercise of IPR by a dominant market player leads to anti-competitive effects in the market. There are several ways in which this conflict can manifest itself:
In addition, a collaboration between IPR holders and competitors may be encouraged to promote innovation and competition in the market. For example, patent pools allow multiple patent holders to license their patents to each other, which can create new products and services. Similarly, cross-licensing agreements can allow competitors to share their intellectual property, leading to increased innovation and competition in the market.
Overall, the conflicts between IPR and competition law are complex and require a careful balance between the interests of IPR holders and the interests of competition. While IPR laws are essential in incentivising innovation, they can also lead to anti-competitive effects when exercised by dominant market players. Competition law seeks to limit the scope of IPR in cases where it leads to anti-competitive effects while also encouraging collaboration between IPR holders and competitors to promote innovation and competition in the market.
The conflict between Intellectual property rights and competition law arises when the exercise of IPR by a dominant market player leads to anti-competitive effects in the market. For example, a patent holder may use its patent rights to prevent competitors from entering the market, or a copyright holder may use its copyright to prevent the creation of competing works. These practices can harm competition by reducing consumer choice, increasing prices, and reducing innovation.
One example of the conflict between IPR and competition law is the case of Microsoft Corporation.
In conclusion, the conflict between Intellectual property rights and competition law is a complex issue that arises from the tension between providing incentives for innovation and ensuring fair competition. While IPR laws are essential in incentivising innovation, they can also lead to anti-competitive effects when exercised by dominant market players. A careful balance can be made between the interests of IPR holders and the interests of the competition.
Also Read:How to Transfer IPR (Intellectual Property Rights)?All You Need to Know About Intellectual Property Rights
Minakshi Bindhani has completed LL.M. with a specialization in Criminal Law from Madhusudan Law University, Cuttack, Odisha. She is more inclined toward legal research and writing and have prior experience in Civil and Criminal litigation and content writing.
On 18th May 2023, the Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI) released a Consultation Paper o...
Infrastructure and real estate have been regarded as India's "sunshine sector" since the turn o...
On 22nd May 2023, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) issued a new circular under secti...
Anyone can have different sources of income. With globalization and the opening up of economies...
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) is crucial in regulating NBFC, including branch openings and cl...
In India, Non-Banking Financial Companies are subject to certain restrictions from taking publi...
It's usually a good idea to diversify the assets in your financial portfolio, especially during...
A nation is being built by the non-banking finance company through the development of wealth, t...
A corporate entity known as a portfolio manager complies with a contract or agreement with the...
Identifying and analysing risks associated with individual portfolio investments, such as equit...
Are you human?: 4 + 8 =
Easy Payment Options Available No Spam. No Sharing. 100% Confidentiality
Obtaining a trademark is essential for entities as it helps them in creating a separate brand value for their busin...
23 Aug, 2022
We Indian people don’t like any kind of objection in our life and this is the matter of trademark objection. Then...
30 Jan, 2019
Red Herring Top 100 Asia enlists outstanding entrepreneurs and promising companies. It selects the award winners from approximately 2000 privately financed companies each year in the Asia. Since 1996, Red Herring has kept tabs on these up-and-comers. Red Herring editors were among the first to recognize that companies such as Google, Facebook, Kakao, Alibaba, Twitter, Rakuten, Salesforce.com, Xiaomi and YouTube would change the way we live and work.
Researchers have found out that organization using new technologies in their accounting and tax have better productivity as compared to those using the traditional methods. Complying with the recent technological trends in the accounting industry, Enterslice was formed to focus on the emerging start up companies and bring innovation in their traditional Chartered Accountants & Legal profession services, disrupt traditional Chartered Accountants practice mechanism & Lawyers.
Stay updated with all the latest legal updates. Just enter your email address and subscribe for free!
Chat on Whatsapp
Hey I'm Suman. Let's Talk!