Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Intellectual Property and Competition Laws: Jural Correlatives|
|Keywords:||Competition law;IP regime;Intellectual property rights;Antitrust law;Abuse of dominance;Mergers;Essential Facilities Doctrine|
|Abstract:||The balance between the dynamic and static goals of IP law and competition law can be met with by means of a deeper analysis of the way their ‘courtship’ operates. Many believe that these two regimes are antagonistic to each other for various reasons, however the authors flouter this proposition. In India , the competition regime is in the state of infancy, the Competition Act, 2002, in particular, has addressed to this issue as a primary concern. However, lack of judicial precedents, owing to a nascent IP regime, has disabled the development of jurisprudence in this regard. Indian law, especially after signing of the TRIPS Agreement, has come in consonance with the laws in EU and US. The authors juxtapose analysis of the courts in the above-mentioned foreign jurisdictions in the Indian context. The primary finding of this paper is that though IP and Competition Law are not antagonistic, there may be situations where IP may be used to extend monopoly beyond the scope of the IP protection. Patent thickets and mergers are examples of situations where monopoly granted by IP may be misused. Herein issues stemming out of anti-competitive agreements and mergers have been highlighted. It has been suggested that ‘Essential Facilities Doctrine’ may be used to solve issues arising out of the inter play between these two facets of law. Therefore, IP must reasonably be subject to competition laws to the extent of preventing misuse of the temporary monopoly.|
|Appears in Collections:||JIPR Vol.12(2) [March 2007]|
Files in This Item:
|JIPR 12(2) (2007) 224-235.pdf||111.97 kB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
Items in NOPR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.