Weekly Television guides are helpful to viewers of TV Channels. TV stations in Bengaluru and Hyderabad published weekly TV guides covering their programmes exclusively and claimed copyright protection. Popular TV Guide w

CS Professional · Intellectual Property Rights - Law and Practice · PYQS · December 2021
Weekly Television guides are helpful to viewers of TV Channels. TV stations in Bengaluru and Hyderabad published weekly TV guides covering their programmes exclusively and claimed copyright protection. Popular TV Guide wanted to publish a comprehensive guide of TV programmes of both the stations but was prevented by TV stations, Bengaluru and Hyderabad on the ground of copyright infringement. By this prevention, the TV stations sought to ensure that third parties did not reproduce their programme listing. Popular TV Guide complained to the Competition Commission of India (CCI) citing the Indian Competition Act, 2002 and arguing that the TV stations Bengaluru and Hyderabad were indulging in an anti-competitive practice of refusal to deal. The TV stations drew the attention of the CCI to section 3(5) of the Competition Act and argued that the said section did not restrict the right of any person to restrain any infringement of or to impose reasonable conditions, as may be necessary for protecting any of the rights conferred upon them under IPR statutes. TV stations Bengaluru and Hyderabad contended that section 3(5) of the Competition Act provided protection of their IPR, namely, Copyright and prayed that the CCI should restrain Popular TV Guide from publishing the comprehensive guide. Popular TV Guide argued that the said anti-competitive practice should not be condoned while providing protection to IPRs, in this case, Copyright. It prayed that it may be allowed to publish the comprehensive guide in customers' interest and public interest. In the light of the facts provided, if you were the CCI, what would be your decision?

Answer & Explanation:

In terms of section 3(5) of Competition Act, 2002, only those restrictions on freedom of competition inherent in protection of IPR could be permitted. Refusal of the TV stations based on their reliance on copyright provisions prevents the creation of a new product (Popular TV Guide's comprehensive guide) for which there is customer demand. The TV stations by such refusal to deal excluded competition in the market. Section 3(5) of the Competition Act, allows only reasonable conditions for protecting IP Rights. If unreasonable conditions exist in a situation, they fall under the ambit of Competition Act and such 'unreasonable conditions cannot be condoned in offering protection of IP rights. Reasonable conditions under section 3(5) elucidate that there must have a logical nexus between the conditions imposed on a third party by an IP owner such as a patentee and the object of preventing infringement of the IP right. Even though the Act purports to prohibit every restraint of trade, it has been applied to prohibit only unreasonable restrictions on trade. Therefore, it would be correct to say that the reasonable conditions imposed not limited to IPR agreements, but in the usual business, terms are also not considered to be anti-competitive in nature. Copyright of the TV stations Bengaluru and Hyderabad cannot be protected in the light of their refusal to allow Popular TV Guide to publish the comprehensive guide, which would be in the interests of customers and the public. Consequently, Popular TV Guide should be allowed to publish the comprehensive guide.

Topics: Intellectual Property Rights

Open in Interactive Practice Hub · Full Practice Hub · Chapter Weightage · More in this subject

Related Questions in this Topic