Google Faces Rs. 936.44 Core Penalty by CCI for Anti-competitive Practices in Relation to Its Play Store Policies

India's competition watchdog —Competition Commission of India (CCI) — has imposed a penalty of Rs. 936.44 crore (~US$ 113.5 Million) on tech giant Google for abusing its dominant position with respect to its Play Store policies, apart from issuing a cease-and-desist order. The Commission also directed Google to modify its conduct within a defined timeline.

For app developers, app stores have become a necessary medium for distribution of their apps to the end users and the availability of app store(s) is directly dependent on OS installed on a smart device. An appreciation of the market dynamics in licensable mobile operating system in India makes it evident that Google’s Android OS has successfully reaped the indirect network effects. Google’s Play Store constitutes the main distribution channel for app developers in the Android mobile ecosystem, which allows its owners to capitalize on the apps brought to market.

Based on its assessment, the CCI found Google to be dominant in the markets for licensable OS for smart mobile devices & market for app stores for Android smart mobile OS, in India.

Selling of in-app digital goods constitutes an important means for app developers to monetize their creations/innovations. However, for in-app digital goods to be distributed to purchasing users, developers must configure their apps so that all purchases of the digital goods go through Google’s payment system, which processes the transactions.

Google’s Play Store policies require the App developers to exclusively and mandatorily use Google Play's Billing System (GPBS) not only for receiving payments for Apps (and other digital products like audio, video, games) distributed/sold through the Google Play Store but also for certain in-app purchases i.e. purchases made by users of Apps after they have downloaded/ purchased the App from the Play Store. Further, app developers cannot, within an app, provide users with a direct link to a webpage containing an alternative payment method or use language that encourages a user to purchase the digital item outside of the app (anti-steering provisions).

If the app developers do not comply with Google’s policy of using GPBS, they are not permitted to list their apps on the Play Store and thus, would lose out the vast pool of potential customers in the form of Android users. Making access to the Play Store dependent on mandatory usage of GPBS for paid apps and in-app purchases is one sided and arbitrary and devoid of any legitimate business interest. The app developers are left bereft of the inherent choice to use payment processor of their liking from the open market.

The CCI has also examined the allegations of exclusion of rival UPI apps as effective payment options on Play Store. It was found that Google Pay has been integrated with intent flow methodology whereas other UPI apps can be used through collect flow methodology. It was noted that the intent flow technology is superior and user friendly than collect flow technology, with intent flow offering significant advantages to both customers and merchants and the success rate with the intent flow methodology being higher due to lower latency. Google has informed the CCI that it has recently changed its policy and has allowed rival UPI apps to be integrated with intent flow. 

Based on its assessment, the CCI concluded that,

• making access to the Play Store, for app developers, dependent on mandatory usage of GPBS for paid apps and in-app purchases constitutes an imposition of unfair condition on app developers. Thus, Google is found to be in violation of the provisions of Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Act.
• Google is found to be following discriminatory practices by not using GPBS for its own applications i.e., YouTube. This also amount to imposition of discriminatory conditions as well as pricing as YouTube is not paying the service fee as being imposed on other apps covered in the GPBS requirements. Thus, Google is found to be in violation of Section 4(2)(a)(i) and 4(2)(a)(ii) of the Act.
• mandatory imposition of GPBS disturbs innovation incentives and the ability of both the payment processors as well as app developers to undertake technical development and innovate and thus, tantamount to limiting technical development in the market for in-app payment processing services.  in violation of the provisions of the Act. Thus, Google is found to be in violation of the provisions of Section 4(2)(b)(ii) of the Act.
• mandatory imposition of GPBS by Google, also results in denial of market access for payment aggregators as well as app developers, in violation of the provisions of Section 4(2)(c) of the Act.
• the practices followed by Google results in leveraging its dominance in market for licensable mobile OS and app stores for Android OS, to protect its position in the downstream markets, in violation of the provisions of Section 4(2)(e) of the Act.
• different methodologies used by Google to integrate, its own UPI app vis-à-vis other rival UPI apps, with the Play Store results in violation of Sections 4(2)(a)(ii), 4(2)(c) and 4(2)(e) of the Act.

Accordingly, in terms of the provisions of Section 27 of the Act, the CCI hereby directs Google to cease and desist from indulging in anti-competitive practices that have been found to be in contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, as detailed in this order. Some of the measures, in this regard, are indicated below:

• Google shall allow, and not restrict app developers from using any third-party billing/ payment processing services, either for in-app purchases or for purchasing apps. Google shall also not discriminate or otherwise take any adverse measures against such apps using third party billing/ payment processing services, in any manner.
• Google shall not impose any Anti-steering Provisions on app developers and shall not restrict them from communicating with their users to promote their apps and offerings, in any manner. 
• Google shall not restrict end users, in any manner, to access and use within apps, the features and services offered by app developers.
• Google shall set out a clear and transparent policy on data that is collected on its platform, use of such data by the platform and also the potential and actual sharing of such data with app developers or other entities, including related entities.

In relation to computation of penalty, the CCI noted that there were glaring inconsistencies and wide disclaimers in presenting various revenue data points by Google. However, in the interest of justice and with an intent of ensuring necessary market correction at the earliest, the CCI quantified the provisional monetary penalties on the basis of the data presented by Google. Accordingly, the CCI imposed a penalty @ 7% of its average relevant turnover amounting to Rs. 936.44 crore upon Google on provisional basis, for violating Section 4 of the Act. Google has been given a time of 30 days to provide the requisite financial details and supporting documents.

The public version of the Order passed by the Commission can be accessed at: https://www.cci.gov.in/antitrust/orders/details/1072/0

CCI orders detailed probe against Make My Trip, OYO

The Competition Commission on Monday ordered a detailed investigation against Make My Trip (MMT) and OYO for allegedly indulging in anti-competitive business practices.

While ordering the probe, CCI also noted that a case against MMT and OYO for entering into a vertical arrangement having an appreciable adverse effect on competition (AAEC) in the market is also "prima facie" made out.

"The Commission is of the view that prima facie a case of contravention against MMT for abuse of dominant position... is made out on account of all the three allegations analysed supra," the Competition Commission of India (CCI) said.

The order came on a complaint filed by Rubtub Solutions Pvt Ltd which operates under the brand name of Treebo Hotels in India and is in the business of providing franchising services to budget hotels.

As per the complaint, Treebo and its partner hotels are being excluded from listing on MMT's platform through abrupt termination pursuant to the commercial arrangement between MMT and OYO.

Besides, MMT is alleged to have imposed "price parity restriction" on Treebo partner hotels through the chain agreement, which restricted it from providing its properties to Booking.com and Paytm at a better price.

Additionally, MMT allegedly imposed an "exclusivity condition" on Treebo through exclusivity agreement which restricted it from listing its properties on Booking.com and Paytm for 72 hours and 30 days prior to check-in for hotels situated in category A and category B cities, respectively.

The complainant said that OYO has abused its dominant position in the market of franchising services for budget hotels in India by entering into an anti-competitive vertical arrangement with MMT, which is a dominant online travel agency (OTA), thereby denying market access to it.

Accordingly, the Commission on "prima facie" finding the contravention of relevant provisions of Competition Act, directed DG, its investigation arm to conduct a detailed probe. PTI SRS

CCI Directs Probe Against Amazon, Flipkart for Alleged Deep Discounting and Preferred Sellers

Fair trade regulator CCI on Monday ordered a probe against e-commerce majors Flipkart and Amazon for alleged malpractices, including deep discounting and tie-ups with preferred sellers on their platforms.

The order follows a complaint filed by Delhi Vyapar Mahasangh, whose members comprise many traders dealing in smartphones and related accessories.

The traders' body accused the e-commerce firms of anti-competitive practices like preferential listing, exclusive tie-ups and private labels.

In its order, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) said it needs to be investigated whether the alleged exclusive arrangements, deep discounting and preferential listing by online marketplace platforms are being used as an "exclusionary tactic to foreclose competition" and are resulting in an appreciable adverse effect on competition.

Commenting on the order, an Amazon India spokesperson said,"We welcome the opportunity to address allegations made about Amazon. We are confident in our compliance, and will cooperate fully with CCI."

Incidentally, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos is expected to visit India this week.

Meanwhile, a Flipkart spokesperson said they are currently reviewing the CCI order.

"The Flipkart group is fully compliant with all applicable laws and FDI regulations. We take pride in democratising e-commerce in India and giving market access to lakhs of MSMEs, sellers, artisans and small businesses, making quality and affordable goods available to consumers through our transparent and efficient marketplace while creating lakhs of jobs," the spokesperson added.

In its complaint, the trade body alleged that there were instances of several vertical agreements between Flipkart and Amazon and their preferred sellers which have led to exclusion of other non-preferred traders from these online marketplaces.

It has been also been alleged that most of these preferred sellers are affiliated with or controlled by Flipkart or Amazon, either directly or indirectly. Besides, the platforms also gather data on consumer preferences and allegedly use them to their advantage, it added.

"This arrangement has far-reaching consequences on the economy as the non-preferred sellers are relegated to sell only through traditional brick and mortar set-up which involves significant fixed costs and are devoid of wide pan-India reach which online marketplaces offer," it was alleged.

"The Commission observes that the exclusive arrangements between smartphone/mobile phone brands and e-commerce platform/select sellers selling exclusively on either of the platforms, as demonstrated in the information, coupled with the allegation of linkages between these preferred sellers and OPs (opposite parties) alleged by the Informant merits an investigation," the CCI said in its order.

Further, it needs to be investigated whether the alleged exclusive arrangements, deep discounting and preferential listing by the e-commerce platforms are being used as an exclusionary tactic to foreclose competition and are resulting in an appreciable adverse effect on competition, contravening the provisions of the Competition Act, the CCI noted.

The Competition Commission has asked the director general to complete the investigation and submit a report within 60 days.

Praveen Khandelwal, secretary general of the Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) which is spearheading an aggressive nationwide movement against Amazon and Flipkart, said this CCI order has been long awaited by the traders of the country.

"Both Amazon and Flipkart have left no stone unturned in destroying and devastating the e-commerce and retail trade market by indulging into all kinds of malpractices including causing huge GST and income tax revenue loss to the government. Their autocratic business module has resulted into closure of thousands of shops in the country in last three months," he added. PTI SRS SP

Indian Firms are Not Subject to Abuse from Foreign Entities - FinMin to CCI

The Competition Commission should ensure that Indian enterprises are not subject to abuse from entities overseas, Union Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said on Friday.

Speaking at an event to celebrate ten years of Competition Commission of India (CCI), the Corporate Affairs Minister said the regulator has many challenges in the context of new economy.

In recent times, the watchdog has been dealing with many cases related to digital area.

The CCI should ensure that "Indian enterprises are not subject to abuse from companies existing somewhere else," she said.

Sitharaman, who is also the finance minister, flagged the issue of competition sans frontiers that impacts Indian consumers.

To recall, in early this month CCI has ordered a probe against Intel Corp for alleged "unfair and discriminatory" provisions in warranty policy for boxed micro-processors sold in India.

In May this year, CCI had order an investigation into Alphabet Inc's unit Google for allegedly abusing the dominant position of its popular Android mobile operating system to block rivals

CCI ordered Probe against Intel India for alleged "Unfair and Discriminatory" Warranty Policy for Micro-Processors

Competition Commission of India (CCI) has ordered a probe against Intel Corp for alleged "unfair and discriminatory" provisions in warranty policy for boxed micro-processors sold in India. Boxed micro-processor (BMP) is a Central Processing Unit (CPU) used for self-assembled computers.

The complaint was filed by Matrix Info Systems Pvt Ltd, engaged in the business of importing and supplying various IT products, against Intel Corporation and its Indian subsidiary Intel Technology India Pvt Ltd.

Matrix alleged that Intel Technology India had entered into an agreement with its authorised Indian distributors which gives them exclusive selling rights in India.

The imposition of the condition to purchase from only certain distributors for claiming warranty in India and a blanket ban on after-sales warranties if purchased from other sources is resulting in total deprivation of consumer choice, the complainant alleged.

Further, the complainant alleged that Intel has been behaving in differential manner with respect to Indian market by implementing a warranty policy specifically for India with regard to BMP.

As per the new policy of 2016, Intel does not offer warranty service to consumers in India on products purchased by them from parallel importers even when such parallel imports have been made from authorised distributors of Intel abroad, it alleged.

[caption id="attachment_132923" align="aligncenter" width="1024"] Representative Image[/caption]

The complainant further alleged that denial of market access to other resellers and parallel importers due to unreasonable condition of warranty put by Intel is in contravention of Section 4 of the Competition Act, which pertains to abuse of dominant position.

Intel in its submissions to the Commission mentioned that India specific warranty policy for BMP of the IT firm is compatible with the Indian legal position.

CCI considered micro-processors market for desktops and laptops in India as the relevant one for the case and found the IT giant to be 'prima-facie' in dominant position.

The Commission observed that the amended warranty policy of Intel in India seems to be aimed at disincentivising the purchase of BMP from distributors other than its authorised distributors in India even when they can get it at cheaper rates from Intel's authorised distributors abroad.

Based on this, CCI said Intel's India specific warranty policy is "prima facie unfair and discriminatory, especially when seen in the light of the fact that such differential treatment is not meted out by Intel in other jurisdictions."

In this regard, the Commission has directed the Director General, its investigation arm, to conduct a probe into the matter and submit an investigation report within a period of 150 days. PTI VHP

India's Competition Watchdog CCI Orders Google Antitrust Investigation for Android abuse concerns

India has reportedly joined European Union (EU) in investigating Google over alleged Android antitrust concerns. Indian competition watchdog Competition Commission of India (CCI) has ordered an investigation into Alphabet Inc's unit Google for allegedly abusing the dominant position of its popular Android mobile operating system to block rivals, reported Reuters citing two sources aware of the matter.

Interestingly, it is still unknown that who filed complaint but it involves more than just one person. Moreover the decision of CCI to go for full investigation has not been previously reported nor it was brought to public knowledge.

According to Reuters, in February last year CCI started looking into the complaint, which is similar to one Google faced in Europe that resulted in a 4.34 billion euro ($5 billion) fine on the company. In that very month, India's CCI too imposed a fine of Rs 136 crore (~$21.1 million) on internet giant Google which was for unfair business practices in the Indian market for online search.

The Reuters report further said that, in mid-April, the CCI decided there was merit in the Android dominance accusations made in the complaint and ordered its investigation unit to launch a full probe.

The undergoing full investigation would be completed in about a year and Google executives would likely be summoned to appear before the CCI in coming months, said the report.

In a statement to Reuters, a Google spokesman said, "Android has enabled millions of Indians to connect to the internet by making mobile devices more affordable. Google looked forward to working with the CCI to demonstrate how Android has led to more competition and innovation, not less."

In last decade, EU has launched three separate antitrust investigations into Google for violating the EU's competition laws due to its dominant position in the market. These cases have resulted in formal charges against Google related to Google Shopping, Google AdSense and the Android operating system.

To Avoid Flipkart's Fate, Ola Founders get CCI Approval to Increase Stake in Parent Firm

Competition watchdog, Competition Commission of India (CCI), has announced on Twitter that it has approved a proposal from the founders of ride-share company Ola to enhance their stake in the parent company, ANI Technologies.

“CCI approves acquisition of 6.72% shares of ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd. by Lazarus Holdings Pte. Ltd,” the tweet reads.

Lazarus Holdings is a Singapore-incorporated subsidy set up by ANI Technologies to be used as an investment holding company.

This comes within a month after Ola had raised $50 million from two new investors, Hong Kong-based Sailing Capital and the China-Eurasian Economic Cooperation Fund (CEECF), at valuation of $4.2 billion.

Last month, Ola founders - Bhavish Aggarwal and Ankit Bhati, along with MacRitchie Investments sought CCI’s approval to increase their stake in the cab aggregator by buying shares from some of the existing shareholders. By this, Ola founders are trying to avoid the fate of FLipkart's Bansals and the Snapdeal founders, who are also angel investors in Ola.

MacRitchie Investments is an indirectly wholly-owned subsidiary of Singapore-based investment company Temasek Holdings. According to reports, Temasek has invested over $200 million in the Bengaluru-based company.

Ola, which competes against US-based Uber counts among its investors names like Softbank, Tiger Global, Tencent and Sequoia Capital, among others mergers and acquisitions beyond a certain threshold require the approval of the CCI.

According to media reports, a few angel investors such as Rehan Yar Khan and venture capital (VC) investors, Accel India, Bessemer Venture Partners, Helion Venture Partners, and TaxiForSure founders Aprameya Radhakrishna and Raghunandan G and some Ola employees will be selling some of their shares to the founders. A few of the VCs will be making a partial exit from the company.

Last year, Ola amended its AoA (article of association) to strengthen founders Bhavish and Ankit’s rights in the company, which gave them the power to veto any further stake buy from SoftBank, which is the company’s largest shareholder.

In May this year, it was also reported that ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd is planning to set up a holding company that will own different business units, including its core cab business, food delivery app Foodpanda and the nascent businesses of electric vehicles (EV) and the international unit. This is very similar to what Google had done by incorporating Alphabet Inc as its parent company.

Ola, which also counts VCs such as Matrix Partners India and Tencent as other major shareholders in the company, recently raised $50 million led by Hong Kong-based Sailing Capital and the China-Eurasian Economic Cooperation Fund (CEECF). This fundraising round takes Ola’s valuation to $3.7-4.3 billion. With this funding, both investors now hold roughly 1.17% in Ola’s parent ANI Technologies.

Last week, IndianWeb2 also reported that Sachin Bansal, the co-founder & former CEO of Flipkart, is in talks to invest $100 million in Ola. This will be from the $1 billion Sachin made from selling his entire 5.5% stake to Walmart and is said to have pocketed $1 billion from the deal.

Source - The News Minute

Amazon India Accused of Favouring its Subsidiary Merchants, Small Sellers Boycott Super Sale Events

As Flipkart and Amazon India begin their festive season sales this week, the All India Online Vendors Association (AIOVA) on Friday filed a petition with antitrust regulator, Competition Commission of India (CCI), alleging that the Amazon India favours merchants that are its subsidiary, such as Cloudtail and Appario.

While Appario Retail Pvt Ltd is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the joint venture between Amazon India Ltd and Ashok Patni, the co-founder of Patni Computer System, Cloudtail, which is the largest seller on Amazon India, is a joint venture between Amazon Inc. and Infosys co-founder N.R. Narayana Murthy’s Catamaran Ventures.

AIOVA, which represents more than 3,500 online sellers, said that large sellers partly owned by Amazon India such as Cloudtail and Appario are being given preferential treatment by charging significantly less than Amazon's advertised rates for other sellers.

AIOVA has asked CCI to impose a "severe penalty" for unfair practices and to restrict what it says are "preferred sellers" from participating in Amazon India's annual festival sales, which start this week.

Amazon India however has denied the accusations ad said that all sellers on its platform are treated equally.

“Amazon has an equal relationship with all the sellers on our marketplace,” Amazon India spokeswoman Bhumika Shah said in an email to Reuters, adding that the company is “absolutely committed” to compliance with local laws.

Besides Amazon, Flipkart too has been accused of giving preferential treatment towards large sellers such as WSRetail, which is Flipkart's subsidiary merchant.

Meanwhile, several small merchants have decided to nearly-boycott the upcoming festive season online sale events this year by not to actively participate in the e-commerce giants’ flagship events. Both Flipkart and Amazon India have scheduled their flagship sales—Big Billion Days and Great Indian Festival, respectively—to begin on October 10.

Earlier this year in May, AIOVA had filed a similar petition accusing Flipkart of preferential treatment towards big sellers, enabling them to provide huge discounts, hurting the business small and medium sellers.

In interactions with nearly a dozen online sellers, ET has also reported that small sellers have reduced their activity on Flipkart and Amazon India because of the e-commerce companies’ seeming preference to vendors such as RetailNet, Super-ComNet, OmniTech Retail (Flipkart), Cloudtail and Appario (Amazon India), and their own brands.

~ Reuters

[Top Image - bnnbloomberg.ca]

India Imposes $21.1 Mn Fine on Google For Biased Search Results

India's Competition Commission has imposed a fine of Rs 136 crore (~$21.1 million) on internet giant Google for unfair business practices in the Indian market for online search, reported Times of India.

After a detailed probe on the complaints filed back in 2012, Competition Commission of India (CCI) found that Google is abusing its dominant position in the local search market for online general web search and web search advertising services. CCI, through a majority order, said the penalty is being imposed on Google for "infringing anti-trust conduct".

“Google was leveraging its dominance in the market for online general web search, to strengthen its position in the market for online syndicate search services. The competitors were denied access to the online search syndication services market due to such a conduct, writes the CCI in a press release.

On the CCI ruling, a Google spokesperson said the company is "reviewing the narrow concerns identified by the Commission and will assess our next steps".

The CCI said it has given thoughtful consideration on the submissions made by Google on issue of penalty and found it appropriate to impose a fine.

The ruling has come on complaints filed in 2012 by Matrimony.com, an Indian matchmaking website, and Consumer Unity & Trust Society (CUTS) against Google LLC, Google India Pvt Ltd and Google Ireland Ltd.

The penalty amount of Rs 135.86 crore was calculated based on Google’s revenue from its operations in India only, and equates to around 5% of its turnover in the market.

Interestingly, out of four members of CCI committee, who ruled this fine imposement orders on Google, two members have showed disagreement saying that they don't find Google in violation of Section 4 of the Competition Act. The section 4 pertains to abuse of dominant position.

Notably, this is one of the rare cases globally where Google has been penalised for unfair business ways, even though it has been under probe in several countries.

To recall, in June 2017, European Union’s Competition Commission had slapped Google with a record breaking $2.7 billion antitrust fine relating to the Google Shopping search comparison service and manipulating search results.

In India, in one more case -- back in 2009 -- Indian politician and Rajya Sabha member Brinda Karat demanded to Ban “Google India” and arrest of the chief of Google India over showing the advertisements of prenatal gender determination or preconception sex selection and thus violating laws of India under the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PNDT) Act.

How Competition Law Affect Startups In India

"Competition is always a good thing. It forces us to do our best. A monopoly renders people complacent and satisfied with mediocrity."- Nancy Pearcey

According to various business experts, competition in business helps one to push their boundaries and work harder for the things that they initially found out of their reach. Recently, the United Kingdom's Competition and Market Authority (CMA), issued a guide for startups.

So, do you think the competition law affects startups?

According to a report by CMA, the startup industry reflects very low standards of awareness about the conducts that are prohibited under the competition law. Many UK startups seem to believe that sharing information with competitors is a totally legal act, as against how it usually is.

Competition Commission of India (CCI), a body similar to CMA, believes that the Indian competition law aims to promote fair competition and consumer welfare. It achieves the same by making sure that ethical business practices are being employed by the companies dispensing the services or producing the products or doing both.

The Competition Act, 2002 strives to fulfil its aim by (i) prohibiting anti-competitive horizontal and vertical agreements, including cartels; (ii) prohibiting abuse of a dominant position; and (iii) regulating mergers and acquisitions, referred to as "combinations” under the Act.

It is important to note that even startups have to duly comply by rules listed under the Competition Act. This is mainly because legal scrutiny under the act has significant chances of reputational risks. Further, the company found breaching the Competition Act can be charged with significant penalties by the CCI.

What all a startup should know?

In order to duly comply with the Competition Act, the Startups should have a general idea of all the rights at their disposal and all the possible antitrust risks that may arise from the Act.

Here are a few key situations that a startup enterprise might consider for ensuring complete compliance with the Competition Act.

Usage of unfair, discriminatory and unilateral practices at the hands of a dominant entity is tagged as an anti-competitive practice. Please note, that you being a startup, doesn't save you from being termed as a dominant entity for a significant time period. Let us taken an example of WhatsApp, which is one of the most popular messaging mobile app available nowadays. WhatsApp had managed to capture a user base of 56 percent Indian mobile internet users within a short span of 3-4 years and climb the top of the market ladder. This gives us enough pretext that startups driven by technology need to take care of all the legalities and checks, right from the very beginning of their startup journey.

As a new kid on the block, you might have to face predatory pricing from dominant competitors. If you're stuck in a similar situation, the best thing for you to do is to discuss your issue and possible legal actions with your competition law counsel.

Similarly, you will also have to keep a watch-out for any possible cartelisation attempt by the well-established players in the market to lower the prices, in an effort to run you dry.

According to Section 3(4) of the Competition Act, the act of an eCommerce startup being directed by a manufacturer not to sell its products below a particular dictated price is referred to as "resale price maintenance” and is considered as a totally anti-competitive act.

Any startup having technology and innovation at heart, might have to register patents, trademarks and copyrights on a time-to-time basis in India. According to the Competition Act, an enterprise can impose reasonable conditions in an agreement in its efforts to protect its intellectual property rights. Mostly, these agreements do not fall under the radar of anti-competitive agreements, unless the intellectual property rights are registered in India.

An agreement typically includes any arrangement, understanding or concerted action. Further, an anti-competitive agreement doesn't necessarily need to be reduced to writing or be legally enforced or formalised.