Tag: competition law

Categories
Criminal Law

Plea Bargaining in India and USA -A Comparative Study

By: Muskan Sharma

Concept of Plea Bargaining

Plea Bargaining is a process where the accused is asked to plead guilty in exchange of the judge acting lenient while awarding punishment or considering the seriousness of the offence. It is derived from the Latin phrase ‘Nolo Contendere’ which means ‘I do not wish to contend’ i.e. a plea of ‘No contest’. Plea Bargaining is a situation where the accused admits that the charges levelled against him are true and that he will not contend a query to the Court to decide over his guilt.

The concept of Plea Bargaining was not originally introduced into the Indian legal system but into USA. However, the Law Commission’s efforts promoted the insertion of the provisions concerning Plea Bargaining via its 142nd, 154th, and 177th reports. A new chapter on ‘Plea Bargaining’ was introduced into the Criminal Procedure Code based on the recommendations of the Law Commission for certain offences.

There are three types of Plea Bargaining namely, Sentence Bargaining, Charge Bargaining, and Fact Bargaining.

The concept of ‘Plea Bargaining’ is operative in both India and USA but the practice is not identical. However, it is pertinent to know about the concept of Plea Bargaining and landmark cases associated to it in both legal systems separately for a fruitful comparison between the two.

Learn more about Criminal Laws with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Master Course! 

Plea Bargaining in USA

In USA, the accused can put forward one of the three pleas i.e. Guilty, Not Guilty, and Nolo Contendere. Under the doctrine of Nolo Contendere, the plea is treated as an implied confession of guilt or that the Court will decide on the point of his guilt.

However, the Court is not bound to accept such a plea of the accused. It is the discretionary power of the Court to either accept or reject such plea, considering the facts and circumstances of each case presented to it. The Court is supposed to ensure that the plea should be put forward voluntarily by the accused and absence of duress and coercion. The accused must receive the protection of secrecy. Plea Bargaining gained momentum due to the overcrowding in prisons of USA.

Landmark Cases in USA

  • State exrel Clark Adams[1]

In the instant case, the Court explained the doctrine of ‘Nolo Contendere’. The Court held that the plea of ‘Nolo Contendere’ also known as ‘Plea of Nolvut’ means the accused does not wish to contend.

  • United States Risfield[2]

The Court observed that in a criminal action in which an application for Plea Bargaining has been made, the adjudication by the Court in relation to the plea of guilty is not necessary. However, the Court may impose sentence on the accused person immediately.

  • Lott United States[3]

The Court held that the plea being tantamount to an admission of guilt, is not conviction but merely a determination of guilt.

  • Bordenkircher Haynes[4]

In this case, the US Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Plea Bargaining while awarding life imprisonment to the accused person who rejected to plead guilty for imprisonment for a term of five years. The Supreme Court observed a slight possibility that the accused person may be coerced to choose among the lesser of the two punishments.

The Supreme Court further observed that there is no probability of coercion or duress if the accused person is free to either accept or reject the offer made by the prosecutor during the negotiation process for Plea Bargaining.

  • Brady United States[5]

In the instant case, the Supreme Court held that the consensus reached out of fear that the trial will result into death penalty will not make the process of Plea Bargaining illegitimate. If the process of Plea Bargaining has been properly conducted and controlled, it is legitimate.

Learn more about Criminal Laws with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Master Course! 

Plea Bargaining in India

Section 265A to 265L (Chapter XXI A) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”) contain provisions concerning ‘Plea Bargaining’.

Section 265A of CrPC provides who is eligible to take benefit of Plea Bargaining. According to the provisions of Section 265A, any accused may take the course of Plea Bargaining except the accused charged with offences that are punishable with death or life imprisonment or imprisonment for a term more than seven years. Also, an accused charged with an offence against a woman or a child below fourteen years of age or affecting the socio-economic conditions of the country, is also not allowed to take the course of Plea Bargaining.

Section 265B provides for the procedure to file an application for Plea Bargaining. The application must contain all details of the case accompanied by a sworn affidavit. Afterwards, the Court may examine the accused to satisfy itself of the fact that the accused has filed such application voluntarily. If the accused satisfies the Court of the voluntariness, the Court provides some time for the mutual satisfactory disposition of the case. If in case, the accused fails to satisfy the Court that he has filed the application voluntarily or that he has been convicted with the same offence previously, the Court may proceed from the stage the application has been filed before it.

Section 265C contains guidelines for mutually satisfactory disposition of the case. It states that the Court shall issue notice to the public prosecutor, if the case instituted on a police report, the accused, and the victim to participate in a meeting to reach at a satisfactory disposition of the case. However, the Court must ensure that the process be completed voluntarily and the accused may participate with his pleader, if he desires so.

Section 265D to Section 265I contain provisions concerning the report of mutually satisfactory disposition, disposal of the case, judgment of the Court, finality of the judgment, power of the Court in plea bargaining, and period of detention already undergone by the accused be set off against the sentence of imprisonment.

Landmark Cases in India

  • Murlidhar Meghraj Loya State of Maharashtra[6]

In the instant case, J. Krishna Iyer criticized the practice of Plea Bargaining. He observed that the Trial Magistrate is burdened with cases and hence, approves the secret dealings of Plea Bargaining. He further observed, “The businessman culprit, confronted by a sure prospect of the agony and ignominy of tenancy of a prison cell, ‘trades out‘ of the situation, the bargain being a plea of guilt, coupled with a promise of ‘no jail‘. These advance arrangements please everyone except the distant victim, the silent society…”

  • Kachhia Patel Shantilal Koderlal State of Gujarat and Anr.[7]

In this case as well, the Supreme Court criticized the concept of Plea Bargaining. The Court held that Plea Bargaining is an unconstitutional process as it encourages corruption and pollutes the concept of justice.

  • State of Uttar Pradesh Chandrika[8]

The Supreme Court held that it is a settled law that a criminal case cannot be disposed off merely on the basis of Plea Bargaining. It was further observed that it is the constitutional duty of the Court to consider the merits of the case and award appropriate sentence despite the confession of the guilt by the accused person.  Mere confession of the guilt by the accused person cannot be a reason for awarding lesser punishment.

However, there has been a shift in the judicial thinking with the passage of time.

Learn more about Criminal Laws with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Master Course! 

  • State of Gujarat Natwar Harchandji Thakor[9]

In the instant case, the Gujarat High Court favoured the process of Plea Bargaining and held that the object is to provide easy, cheap, and expeditious resolution of disputes including the trial in criminal cases and that it prevents the pendency and delay in disposal of the administration of justice.

  • Vijay Moses Das CBI[10]

In the instant case, a person was accused of supplying of sub-standardized material to ONGC at a wrong port and thereby, causing ONGC to suffer huge losses. CBI completed the investigation and started prosecution against the accused person under Section 420, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The accused person took the course of Plea Bargaining. But the Trial Court rejected the application of Plea Bargaining on the ground that it was not accompanied by an affidavit as stipulated under Section 265B and no compensation was fixed. However, the Uttarakhand High Court directed the Trial Court to accept the application of Plea Bargaining.

  • Thippaswamy State of Karnataka[11]

In the instant case, the Supreme Court held that inducing an accused person to plead guilty under any assurance or promise is unconstitutional for being violative of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It further observed that in such cases, the Court must set aside the conviction and direct the case to the Trial Court to give accused person the right to defend himself and if found guilty, the Trial Court may award appropriate punishment to him.

Plea Bargaining in India and USA: Comparative Analysis

Though the concept of ‘Plea Bargaining’ as adopted into the Indian legal system has been borrowed from USA, it is still distinguishable from the operation of ‘Plea Bargaining’ in USA. Following are some of the major differences that exist between the concept of ‘Plea Bargaining’ as operative in India and USA:

Learn more about Criminal Laws with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Master Course! 

  1. Nature of Offence

In USA, there is no provision as to the prohibition on plea bargaining in certain offences. An accused person charged with any offence may take the course of Plea Bargaining. However, in India, there are exceptions as contained in Section 265A. Following categories of accused persons cannot take the course of Plea Bargaining in India:

  1. Accused person charged with an offence punishable with death
  2. Accused person charged with an offence punishable with life imprisonment
  3. Accused person charged with an offence punishable with imprisonment of more than seven years
  4. Accused person charged with an offence against women
  5. Accused person charged with an offence against a child below fourteen years of age
  6. Accused person charged with an offence that affects socio-economic conditions of the country
  7. Role of Victim in Proceedings

In Indian Law, the victim has an important role in the proceedings of Plea Bargaining. The victim has the power to refuse or veto if unable to reach a mutually satisfactory disposition. However, in USA, the victim does not have an active role to play in the proceedings of Plea Bargaining.

  1. Mechanisms available for enforceability

In USA, an application for Plea Bargaining is filed only after the negotiation process between the accused person and the prosecutor is complete. However, in India, the negotiation process with the accused person does not even start before the filing of the application of the Plea Bargaining to ensure that the application of Plea Bargaining is filed voluntarily by the accused. Therefore, there is less chance of the accused being coerced or secret dealings for filing an application for Plea Bargaining.

Learn more about Criminal Laws with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Master Course! 

  1. Discretion of the Judge

In USA, the judge does not exercise discretionary power while accepting an application for Plea Bargaining. However, in Indian legal system, the judge has discretionary powers to either reject or accept an application for Plea Bargaining filed by the accused person.

  1. Finality

Under the Indian legal system, if the Court thinks the punishment awarded in any case of Plea Bargaining is insufficient or is guarded by unfair circumstances, it may be set aside either by an SLP under Article 136 or a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution. However, in USA, it reaches its finality.

 

Conclusion

The conviction rate via Plea Bargaining in the USA is as high as nearly 90% whereas in India, it is not even close to 10% of the criminal cases. This disparity exists due to the differences that exist between the concept of Plea Bargaining as practiced in USA and India.

Though the conviction rate in India is way too low as compared to the conviction rate in USA, it is effective in ensuring that the application of Plea Bargaining has been filed voluntarily. Justice may be delayed but must not be denied. In India, an accused person does not take the course of Plea Bargaining to choose the lesser among the punishments but is a voluntary action. Hence, it is high probability that an innocent person will not be awarded punishment in India by way of Plea Bargaining.

However, speedy disposal of cases is the need of the hour. Hence, the legislature must go for reforms and provide adequate infrastructure to the judiciary to reduce the number of undertrial prisoners.

Learn more about Criminal Laws with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Master Course! 

[1] 363 US 807

[2] 340 US 914

[3] 367 US 421

[4] 434 US 357 (1978)

[5] 397 US 742 (1970)

[6] AIR 1976 SC 1929

[7] 1980 Cr LJ 553

[8] 2000 Cr LJ 384

[9] (2005) Cr LJ 2957

[10] Crl. (Misc.) Application No. 1037/2006

[11] (1983) 1 SCC 194

Categories
Blog

Trademark and Competition Law

By: Ishika Gautam

COMPETITION LAW
The Indian Government in pursuit of increasing the economic efficiency of our country acknowledged the Liberalization, Privatization, and globalization era by liberalizing the country’s economy and reducing governmental control. Currently, the Indian economy is facing aggressive competition in every field. Fair competition has proven to be an effective mechanism which enhances the efficiency of the economy. Therefore the primary purpose of implementing the competition law was to control monopolies and encourage competition.
The objective behind the formulation of competition law, Intellectual property laws is to protect the research and development inventions which are carried out by the inventor firm from being used by other companies producing the same kind of products and making a profit from the same. Therefore, on the one hand, IP laws work towards creating monopolistic rights, whereas, on the other hand, competition law battles with it. From this, there seems to be a clash between the objectives of both these laws.
The competition laws involve the formulation of policies that promote competition in the local markets and aim to prevent anti-competitive business practices and unwanted interference of Government. The competition law seeks to eliminate monopolization of the production process so that new firms can enter the market. The maximization of consumer welfare and increased production value are a few primary objectives of competition law. On the other hand, IP Laws are monopolistic legal rights granted to owners resulting from human intellectual creativity.

Learn more about Intellectual Property with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Master Course! 

Case law-
Arun Chopra v. Kaka-Ka Dhaba Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
The famous restaurant named Kake Da Hotel has now attained it’s secured rights in its name and trademarks against another Nashik-based food outlets namely ‘Kaka-ka Dhaba’, ‘Kaka-Ka Restaurant ‘Kaka-Ka Garden’. The Court has observed that even though there isn’t a doubt that the user is long and extensive. The question arises whether the word ‘Kaka’ or ‘Kake’ can be a monopoly of any party and could be adjudicated on trial. Till now, the interim order is granted in favour of the plaintiff and the defendants are prohibited from using words ‘Kaka-ka’ with any new outlet during the period, it has allowed that the defendants can continue to use the names Kaka-ka Dhaba’, ‘Kaka-Ka Restaurant’ and ‘Kaka-Ka Garden’.

Under the Competition law of IPR, the market’s unavailability can establish some dominance in markets. Similarly, the comparison of market shares between a dominant firm and its competitors is advantageous in determining the power and monopoly. It seems complicated to decide on the minimum percentage of market share that could attain dominance or monopoly of a particular firm in the market. Various judgments dominance cannot establish a minimum rate that points to the firm’s authority.

Learn more about Intellectual Property with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Master Course! 

The anti-competition laws to tackle the monopolies of IPR often include two measures: compulsory licensing and parallel imports. The compulsory license is when the state has authorized an IPR holder to surrender their exclusive rights over intellectual property, under article 31 of Trade-Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. The compulsory licenses are granted only under specific circumstance such as the interest of public health, in national emergencies, in nil or inadequate exploitation of any patent in any country, and also for the overall national interest. On the other hand, Parallel imports include all goods brought in the country without authorization of an appropriate IP holder and are placed legitimately into the market.

In addition to all these provisions, provisions like Section 3 of the new Competition Act, 2002, deals with more anti-competitive agreements that cannot be used by the IPR holders as they conflict with competition policies. Firstly, the patent pooling is a restrictive practice where the firms of particular manufacturing industry decide, to pool their patents and then agree to not grant the licenses to third parties, then simultaneously fix quotas and prices. Secondly, one more clause that restricts the competition concerning research and development or prohibits a licensee from using other rival technology is considered to be anti-competitive under this law. Thirdly, the licensor under this law is not permitted to fix the price at which the licensee would sell his goods.

Learn more about Intellectual Property with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Master Course! 

The above examples are not exhaustive, but a few examples demonstrate the anti-competitive provisions applicable to the IPR under this Act. Moreover, under Section 27 of this Act, India’s Competition Commission had the authority to penalize the IPR holders who abuse their dominant position. Furthermore, under Section 4 of this Act, the Commission is authorized to punish the parties of an anti-competitive agreement, it is in the contradiction of this section.

TRADEMARK LAW
Search
To search for a mark before filling the application is the most fundamental part of applying for a trademark. Even though it is not a procedural pre-requisite for the application, it finds its utmost importance in the fact that acceptance of a mark for registration as a trade mark relies on the vividness of the mark. It is a crucial step to carry a detailed search in the Trade Marks Registry, to check for the mark’s uniqueness and deduct all possibilities of duplication. It also needs to be checked that the proposed mark is not the same or even similar to any other existing mark registered or pending for registration. A detailed prior search is also a proof of honesty and good faith in accepting the mark, during opposition and the infringement proceedings.

Classification
The application for the trademark needs to be specified by the appropriate class or classes of the goods or services, concerning which the application is filed. The applicant for trademark needs to be extremely careful in ascertaining the type of goods or services in their application as the tester needs to be convinced about the proper use of goods and services from a particular class or across all classes to the application, and a broad declaration can also prolong the process of the examination.

Learn more about Intellectual Property with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Master Course! 

Selection
The selection of a mark is an important part of any application. The mark selected needs to meet the qualifications that are enlisted in the Trade Mark Act, and it has to fall within the parameters of its presence as a device, brand, a heading, label, a ticket, name, signature, word, letter, a numeral, shape of goods, packaging or any combination of colours, or any combination of these distinct elements that are capable of being ‘graphically represented’ and indicates a trade connection with the proprietor. Now, it essentially needs to have a proper distinctive character capable of constructively distinguishing all the applicant’s goods and services from others. The denial of the presence of uniqueness of the mark may result in the refusal of the application.

Filing of Application
The application for the mark can be filed by a person or his respective IP Lawyer or any other person who is authorized in this respect at the designated Head office (at Mumbai) or any branch offices (at Ahmedabad, Chennai, Delhi, Kolkata) of Registry by a delivery at the front office either personally or by post, it can also be submitted electronically through the gateway being provided at ipindia.nic.in. The application for this has to be generally filed at the office which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the principal place of business of that applicant in India is situated. There are many applications which need to be filed directly at Head Office.
Special care needs to be taken of the fees, and as non-payment results in regarding the application as not-filed.

Numbering and Examination of Application
On receipt of the application, it is appropriately dated and numbered. A copy of it is returned to the applicant/attorney—a number assigned to the mark, which is the registration number post-registration. The proprietor is only allowed to use the trademark symbol after their application has been completed and numbered. The application is adequately examined for accuracy of the class in which the mark has been filed, all the necessary documents that need to be attached depending on the type of application- registration of the mark for goods or services being included in one class/different classes/with priority claim etc., details of the applicant and the proprietor.

Learn more about Intellectual Property with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Master Course! 

Hearing
After the proper completion of the examination, the Trademarks Registry sends an “Official Examination Report” to that applicant. The applicant may sometimes be required to reply to the objections raised by the Examiner under Section 9 and Section 11 of Trade Marks Act and the clarifications regarding the content of the application. The reply being insufficient to satisfy the Examiner, the applicant is then granted a hearing to overcome his objections.

Publication in the Trade Mark Journal
The mark’s application is then published in the “Trade Marks Journal,” after a proper post-examination hearing with the applicant. The journal is also published by the Trademarks Registry and is a publication by the Government of India. The application is then granted registration if it stands being unopposed after the proper publication in the journal for a stipulated period of four months.
If the publication is challenged in any case, then the opposition proceedings commence, and the registration is granted freely only if the proceedings conclude in favour of the applicant.

Opposition Proceedings
Anyone can file a notice of opposition against any application published in the journal, within that period of four months from the date of that mark being published in the journal. Any supporting evidence can accompany the notice for the opposition.
An application can then be opposed to the primary grounds that are provided in the Trade Mark Act. This is the Registrar’s task to serve a copy of the opposition to the applicant, inside two months of receipt of resistance. The applicant must then reply within two months; failure to do so will result in the applicant’s application being treated as abandoned. The counter-statement is given to the opponent, and usually, the parties are being heard along with the consideration of proper evidence provided by both parties.
The Registrar is given the authority to decide the acceptance of trademark application based on the hearing’s judgment. The aggrieved party is given the right to challenge the ruling by filing an appeal in front of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board.

Registration
The mark’s application is registered if it has been accepted and not opposed, or opposed but has been decided in favour of the applicant. The applicant is also issued the Certificate of Registration and is further allowed to use the symbol R and the registered trademark. The registered trademark given is valid for the next ten years from the date of that application is received for the mark.

Learn more about Intellectual Property with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Master Course! 

Renewal
A registered trademark can be renewed after every ten years for an unlimited period on payment of that particular renewal fee. The renewal request should ideally be filed in the Trade Marks Registry within only six months before the expiry of the trademark. The application can also be filed up to six months after the trademark expiry, with the payment of the late renewal fees being prescribed.

Litigation
1) To obtain John Doe Orders and ex parte injunctions.
2) To accept search and seizure orders.
3) To conduct market raids.
4) To check for the accounts of the infringer.
5) To medicate for amicable settlement of disputes.
6) Do Arbitration and also Conciliation.

Enforcement through constructions
The Customs Act of 1962, enables Commissioner of Customs, on behalf of Central Government, prohibits importing the goods on absolute or conditional terms, used for the protection of patents, trademarks, and copyrights. In contrast to this, the authorities came up with Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules in 2007 which correctly specifies the process of protection of these intellectual property rights (Copyright, Trade Mark, Patent, Design and Geographical Indication) from getting violated in the course of these import into the country.

Licensing of Trademarks
The trademark’s license is an agreement between a registered proprietor of the trademark (licenser) and another person (licensee), giving authority to the licensee to use the trademark in the course of trade, against a particular payment of royalty to the licenser. The word here used “license” is not mentioned anywhere in the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Act says about the words “registered user” and “permitted use.”

Revocation of Trade Mark
An application for the cancellation or rectification of a trademark registration can be made only by the aggrieved person. Such type of application must be filed with Registrar of Trade Marks or the Appellate Board.
Some of the grounds on which the registration can be removed or cancelled:
The trademark being registered was done without any bona fide intention, and there was no bona fide use of the trademark for the time up to date of three months before the date of the application for removal.
Three months before the application for removal, a regular period of five years from the date on which the trademark has entered on the register or longer has elapsed during which brand was registered and in which no bona fide use.
Trademark was registered without any sufficient cause.

 

Learn more about Intellectual Property with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Master Course! 

Categories
Blog

Competition Law Issues in the Fashion Industry

By: Cheshta Tater 

When one thinks of the fashion industry, the first words which come into one’s head are “designer wear” and “exclusivity”. A small consumer share but a considerable revenue and profit share of the fashion industry comprises luxury fashion.[1] Luxury fashion thrives on exclusivity and brand value and is always a status symbol, never a need. Given its exclusive and expensive nature, one cannot help but wonder how it rarely ever comes under the lens of the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) or any other anti-trust regulatory body.

The objective of competition law is to create a healthy market environment by protecting and balancing the interests of businesses, consumers, and the economy. Lower but competitive prices allow consumers to make informed decisions about the substitutive products they wish to purchase while ensuring that no business abuses its dominant position. However, in the luxury sector of the fashion industry, the prices of products are always sky-rocketing. The much affordable products can not substitute them since the cost of a product, and its brand carries high social standing value, and are often one of a kind.

In the past few years, there have been several mergers and acquisitions in the luxury fashion sector worldwide, leading to a few dominant players. However, none of them has come under the beat for violating provisions of competition law. Through this article, the author would elaborate upon regulatory authorities’ findings regarding the monopolies present in the luxury sector. After that, the intersection of Intellectual Property Rights (“IPR”) and Competition Laws concerning the fashion industry. Lastly, the author would present their views on the necessity to check on the dominant players in the luxury and high fashion sectors.

Learn more about Fashion Law with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Diploma course by Legaleye Advocates and Legal Consultants!

  1. Escaping the Watchdogs

The 1990s saw the boom of luxury fashion houses as well as fast fashion houses across the globe. With India’s globalisation in 1991, these brands became household names for the affluent and aspirational products for the middle class. One such brand was “Louis Vuitton”, the first label of the world’s largest luxury fashion group, LVMH.[2]

Since 1987, LVMH has acquired many luxury labels, both within and outside the fashion sector. Today, the group owns 75 luxury houses[3] in the industry of, inter alia, clothing, cosmetics, bags, watches, wines and spirits, and perfumes. In 2000, the joint acquisition of the fashion house Prada by LVMH and Fendi was approved.[4] The European Commission allowed for such a merger since these companies’ market share did not exceed the 25% limit.[5] Even though the 25% mark was crossed in the luxury handbags sector and leather accessories, the Commission chose to look at the luxury sector as a whole rather than dividing it into segments such as luxury clothing, luxury handbags, and luxury wines, and the likes.[6] The Commission believed that despite the merger, the parties would not be a dominant player in the market,[7] and the same was reasoned by stating:

  • Luxury items have low to no substitutability with other similar but non-luxurious products[8]; and
  • The purchase of a luxury good is linked to prestige rather than consumption of a specific item,[9] indicating that one luxury label’s product can not be substituted by a similar effect of another luxury label.

The goodwill, brand name, and the trademark value of a luxury fashion group is the most significant factor in deciding the cost of its goods and its worth as a status symbol. The intersection of IPR and Competition law is discussed in the following segment. This will help understand the exorbitant prices and the Commission’s reasons behind allowing the joint acquisition.

Learn more about Fashion Law with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Diploma course by Legaleye Advocates and Legal Consultants!

  1. The intersection of IPR and Competition Law

IPR refers to a bundle of rights which give the owner the right to exclude others from accessing the product, subject to a limited period, i.e., it aims towards providing a sort of monopoly to the owner of the said invention by giving them the sole right to use or distribute it. On the other hand, Competition Law strives for the exact opposite and actively works towards a non-monopolistic market. Hence, a tussle arises between the two–which while talking of similar subjects, are complementary to one another in nature in certain areas and balancing them is essential for having a near-perfect market.

The denotation of ‘competition’ in the IPR and Competition Law are contextually different. The primary objectives of granting IPR encourage fierce competition among the intending innovators and simultaneously restrict the competition in many ways. At the end of the specified duration, the rights go to the public domain ending the completion. The objective of Competition Law is to prevent abusive practices in the market, promote and sustain competition in markets and ensure that the consumers get the right products at a reasonable price and better quality.[10]

While competition in IPR is reward-based, it aims to regulate and eliminate the unfair advantages wielded by monopoly holders in Competition Law. Competition Law also does not recognise the concept of right, while IPR on the other hand, by way of competition, allows for exploitation of rights, albeit in a restricted manner. However, in both, the basic concept of competition is the main driving force of respective legislation. While it may seem that the objectives of both are poles apart, somewhere down the line, their ultimate goals are the same, i.e., to achieve consumer welfare.

Learn more about Fashion Law with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Diploma course by Legaleye Advocates and Legal Consultants!

When it comes to luxury fashion, a dire need is seen to strike a balance between the two laws. While IPR is essential to luxury brands as more than anything, it is the brand’s uniqueness, which makes it a luxurious one. For example, it is the red sole of Christian Louboutin’s, which attribute them their high value. The principles of IPR must remain intact to promote innovation and cater to the public who may value uniqueness as an important factor while purchasing. For the same, evils such as Counterfeiting must be avoided and actively punished not to bring down the value of said luxury brands and in the background, the importance of innovation.

However, it is also crucial that these exclusive rights do not turn into Monopolies which in turn do not just turn exploitative to other producers, but are also unfair to the consumer as because of this exclusivity, not only can be charged exorbitant prices for said ‘unique products’, but also result in lesser variety for the consumer to choose from. And hence, the balance between Competition Law and IPR needs to be struck perfectly to neither take away from the Innovators and Owners, but also not hamper the consumer.

  • Bring them under the lens.

As discussed earlier, luxury brands are known for their exclusive goods and sometimes, even their exclusive customers. A luxury handbag label, Birkin, is so exclusive that bags aren’t available in retail stores and only a very few loyal customers are even offered to purchase a Birkin handbag.[11] This exclusivity of the brand and its reflection lies in the originality and sophistication of the product’s creation, the qualitative level of the materials used, and the products’ marketing.

Considering such exclusivity of the brand and its goods, presupposing luxury products’ interchangeability does not set a good precedent. For instance, no other label’s handbag is at par with a Birkin bag when it comes to exclusivity and status. As established earlier, luxury products are not purchased for their utility but their reputation. Even a product of the same fashion house cannot replace the more exclusive product at such a point. Taking the example of Birkin, a Birkin bag cannot be substituted by a bag of Hermès, which is the parent company of Birkin. Their cost indicates the same. While the cheapest Hermès bag sells for $540, the cheapest Birkin doesn’t trade for anything less than $12000.[12]

Learn more about Fashion Law with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Diploma course by Legaleye Advocates and Legal Consultants!

Suppose the interchangeability of luxury products cannot be presumed. In that case, the entire luxury market cannot be created as a single competitive space, i.e., a more transparent and distinct division of products is necessary to correctly evaluate competitiveness and dominance in the luxury market. Wines and bags cannot be created in the same market. Once distinct relevant market needs are defined, it will be apparent that LVMH is a dominant player in two sectors: luxury handbags and luxury leather accessories.[13] The pertinent question in competition law now arises: Is this dominant position being abused?

In LVMH’s case, it is crucial to understand that the group owns 75 brands, many of which are “must-have” goods for retailers, i.e., an essential product that retailers have to stock and display to meet their customer’s requirements.[14] This leads to lower bargaining power in the hands of the retailer so that they have to stock more from the house, apart from the most-have. In turn, this leads to the absence or reduced presence of other dwellings in such a boutique because the retailer only has so much capital to invest.

Companies are free to enter the market in a competitive market to compete with existing players, without immediately devoured by more powerful rivals. It is becoming difficult for existing players to compete with LVMH; one can only imagine how new players will be slaughtered in the market. LVMH’s turnover of 53.7 billion euros in 2019 marked its dominance as the strongest player in the luxury market. Gucci, the second-largest luxury fashion house, has still not reached the 10 billion euro turnover landmark.[15]

Learn more about Fashion Law with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Diploma course by Legaleye Advocates and Legal Consultants!

The numbers speak for themselves, indicating that the abuse of a dominant market position is not always active but is passive. If too much emphasis is placed on active abuse, there may be a risk that the market’s actual situation and concerns are overlooked.

[1] McKinsey and Company, The State of Fashion 2020 (2020) <https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/industries/retail/our%20insights/the%20state%20of%20fashion%202020%20navigating%20uncertainty/the-state-of-fashion-2020-final.ashx> 90-91

[2] Deloitte, Global Powers of Luxury Goods 2019: Bridging the Gap between the Old and the New (2019) <https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/ar/Documents/Consumer_and_Industrial_Products/Global-Powers-of-Luxury-Goods-abril-2019.pdf> 15, 42

[3] LVMH, Houses, <https://www.lvmh.com/houses/#:~:text=LVMH%20is%20home%20to%2075,exquisite%20caliber%20of%20its%20products.&text=Our%20group%20of%20wines%20and,no%20other%20in%20the%20world> last accessed 22 December 2020

[4] Commission approves joint acquisition of Fendi by LVMH and PRADA (European Commission, 26 May 2000) <https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_00_535> last accessed 22 December 2000

[5] Commission of the European Communities, LVMH / PRADA / Fendi (2000) COMP/M.1780 [16]

[6] ibid

[7] ibid [22]

[8] ibid [11]

[9] ibid [10]

[10] Shubhodip Chakraborty, Interplay Between Competition Law And IPR In Its Regulation Of Market (Lawctopus, 15 November 2015) <https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/interplay-competition-law-ipr-regulation-market/#:~:text=Intellectual%20Property%20Rights%20(IPR)%20consists,adverse%20effect%20on%20the%20market> last accessed on 23 December 2020

[11] Sarah Lindig, This Iconic Bag is Still the Most Exclusive in the World (Harper’s Bazaar, 14 June 2015) <https://www.harpersbazaar.com/fashion/trends/a11201/hermes-birkin-bag-most-exclusive-in-the-world/> last accessed 22 December 2020

[12] Hermès <https://www.hermes.com> last accessed 23 December 2020

[13] LVMH / PRADA / Fendi (n 6)

[14] Commission of the European Communities, Coca-Cola/Amalgamated Beverages GB (1997) IV/M.794 [136-138]

[15] George Arnet, Gucci on Track to Hit €10 Billion in 2020 (Vogue Business, 26 April 2019) <https://www.voguebusiness.com/companies/gucci-sales-reach-euro-10-billion> last accessed 24 December 2020

Learn more about Fashion Law with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Diploma course by Legaleye Advocates and Legal Consultants!