Though the two systems exist as integrated parts of present-day legal frameworks, the relationship between IPR and CL has often been afflicted by a tension that refuses to abate. IPR, as understood from statutes like the Indian Copyrights Act, Patents Act, and Trademarks Act, gives authors and inventors exclusive rights to their works. It is further mentioned that these rights under Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights deal with the protection of moral and material interests of authors of scientific, literary, or artistic productions. The IPR laws, though granting a monopoly to encourage innovation by the creators, often conflict with the competition laws, since the main objective of the latter is to promote fair competitions, prohibit any kind of monopolistic practice, and protect consumer interests. The contradiction that is there between the two laws is a debating point in legal jurisprudence, which is of supreme concern in the situation at hand, that is, India, having ratified the TRIPS Agreement by bringing in a state-of-the-art IPR legislative regime.
The main point of IPR is granting monopoly rights to creators and innovators through which they can have the benefits of their inventions without worrying about immediate replication by other people in the same field. In India, IPR is protected by different acts such as the Patent Act, which provides inventors exclusive rights over their inventions for a certain period. Therefore, this exclusivity plays a significant role in areas like pharmaceuticals, technology and entertainment that need heavy investments in research and development that must be recovered back. The TRIPS Agreement ratified by India sets minimum standards on the protection of intellectual property rights allowing countries to have more extensive protection if they so desire. This framework has resulted into modern Indian law on this subject that balances the need for innovation with respect to creators’ rights. However, monopolies granted by IPR can lead to an anti-competitive behavior where the IPR holder may restrict access to essential products or technologies driving prices up and leaving consumers with fewer choices. This point highlights the conflict between competition law and IPR enforcement policy.
It is true that while aiming at protecting innovation, Intellectual Property Rights may at times disrupt competition creating problems for regulators and policy makers. The competition law, rather, is fashioned on the ground that markets should function in the best possible way and be able to ensure that consumers are offered diversified choices at fair prices. The competition law in India, under the Competition Act, aims at practices like monopolistic behavior of firms, cartelization, and abuse of dominant market positions. The law aims at creating a level playing field where businesses will compete with each other on merit, and that will go on to bring about innovation, better products, and services for an improved lot of the consumers. Competition law also aims at checkmating anti-competitive agreements that will harm efficiency and consumer welfare in the market. The primary regulatory body for enforcing the competition law is the Competition Commission of India. The commission should ensure that markets remain competitive and dominant positions of entities cannot be used, whatever their IPR, to abuse the market and prejudice consumers.
This is a challenge in the very nature of the relationship between IPR and competition law. For example, in as much as a patent confers exclusive rights upon its holder, competition law nevertheless prohibits the use of such a monopoly to the detriment of consumer welfare and the suppression of innovation. The conflict between IPR and competition law exists because IPR promotes monopoly, and competition law seeks to prevent the same. TRIPS recognizes this tussle; for example, it made the acknowledgment that some IPR licensing practices can actually restrain competition and be able to have an adverse effect on trade. Article 40 of TRIPS further allows member states to adopt measures to prevent such anti-competitive practices. A key issue is that, although IPR laws grant exclusivity, competition law intervenes when such exclusivity causes harm to the market. For example, copyright was held not to immunize Microsoft from the American antitrust laws in United States vs. Microsoft. In addition, for instance, in the Indian case of Shamsher Kataria vs. Honda Siel Cars, the defendants attempted to justify anti-competitive practices based on their IPR under Section 3(5) of the Competition Act. The court did not buy this defense, and found that the markups imposed by manufacturers were indeed abusive.
The tension between IPR and competition law is heightened in cases where dominant firms exercise control over crucial infrastructure or assets which are necessary for competitors. The US Supreme Court emphasized such provision in the case of Otter Tail Power Co. vs. United States, where it ordered that even though one firm is dominant and owns IPR over the infrastructure, it would have to make the facility open to competition on non-discriminatory terms. Such a provision underlines the need to strike a balance between IPR and competition law to guarantee market access and ensure fairness. Both IPR and competition law are important instruments for the promotion of innovation, protection of consumer interests, and ensuring the integrity of market practices; rather than seeing them as clashing, there is a need for their harmonious integration. There should be sufficient clarity on the jurisdiction that there is no overlap in roles and no scope for conflicting decisions. CCI, with its expertise in market regulation, should consciously be kept as the primary authority in cases of IPR crossing with issues of competition.
Disputes arising on personal, contractual, or licensing matters ideally should not be handled by sectoral regulators like the Patent Controller, because they are better equipped to probe such issues. Therefore, the relationship between IPR and competition law is a balancing act that should be carefully weighed between the two legal regimes. While IPR is important for promoting innovation and rewarding creativity, it should not be allowed to hinder competition and reduce consumer welfare. Competition law thus plays an essential role in ensuring that even when there is IPR, markets remain open, competitive, and fair. Interdependence and collaboration of this kind among the Competition Commission of India and other sectoral regulators will mean that both IPR and competition law play their roles in the economy, as expected.
Author Bio
