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

Competition and intellectual property are closely linked, as intellectual property law rewards innovation by granting exclusive rights, the competition law ensures that companies do not restrict freedom to compete or exploit market power with anticompetitive consequences. However, from the traditional point of view, the situation may be different for those companies whose IP assets give them a strong position in a given market to the extent enabling them to restrict the competition in that market. But it is now accepted that, since they do not necessarily, or even very often, create legal or economic monopolies, IP law do not necessarily clash with competition laws because the goods and services produced using IP compete in the market place with other closely substituted goods and services. The connotation of 'competition' in both IPR and competition law are different. The main objective of permitting license in IPR is to encourage competition among the prospective innovators and concurrently restrict the competition in several ways and after a specified period, the rights go to the public domain ending the competition. The primary objective of competition law is to stop the abusive practices in the market, stipulate and encourage competition in the market and make sure that customers get the proper product at an affordable price with improved quality. The correlation between IP rights and Competition Law seems to be contradictory to each other but in actuality, it is not; but it assists the person to invest in a dynamic competition by restraining the rigid competition. It gives benefits to the holder to make exclusive use of his product within a particular period. During such a particular period the patent owners have monopoly power and are in a position to dominate. Such dominance will not lead to infringement of antitrust law. The rapid development of commercial environments have resulted in establishing a relationship between competition law and Intellectual Property Rights. As discussed earlier, IPR regulates the exclusive rights that a business or an individual may have over intangible assets pertaining to a business such as trademarks, innovations, trade secrets and creative works. Competition law, on the other hand, regulates acquisitions and mergers and safeguards commercial environments from anti-competitive practices. Moreover, IP is pro-competitive. This means that IP systems would help consumers make conscious choices with respect to the goods and services among competing brands that are available in the market. IP ensures that each brand is distinctive in nature and without IP enforcement, brands would attempt to copy each other's business models and other aspects. In sum, it can be said that IP ensures that there exists competition in commercial environments. Facilitating competition in commercial environments is also one of the main roles of competition law. Hence, it can be said that IP and competition law may cumulatively ensure competition among brands in business environments. While both IP and competition law facilitate similar goals, the interface between IP and competition law also poses several issues. For one, when IP laws are enforced upon non-differentiating features of a brand such as patents, trade secrets or other aspects of a business that does not add to the distinctiveness of a business, exclusivity follows. This essentially means that, enforcing IP laws on such features would grant exclusivity or monopoly over them. Typically, the principles and policies of competition law disagrees with the unduly extension and imposition of IP laws on all the facets of a business. At the same time, inadequate IP enforcement can also pose several issues in commercial environments. For instance, inefficient IP enforcement may negatively impact competitiveness among businesses. When the aspects that add to the distinctiveness of a business are not protected with the help of IP laws, duplication and imitation of the same may follow. The imitation and duplication of the various distinctive aspects that are linked to a business will result in inadequate competition between businesses which inherently goes against the principles of competition law. Thus, an inference can be drawn that there is a need to draw a balance between IP and competition law for both its principles to co-exist. IP is pro-competitive. Hence, IP enforcement that would balance the interests of both competitors as well as inventors and creators will facilitate adequate competition in commercial environments. Section 3 of the Indian Competition Act, 2002 explains that no enterprise or association of enterprises or person or association of persons can enter into any agreement with respect to the production, supply, distribution, storage, acquisition or control of goods or provision of services that are likely to cause an adverse effect on competition within India. In India, the conflict between IP laws and competition laws can be noted through section 3(5) and section 4 of the Act. Section 3(5) of the Act deals with a blanket exception on IPR which implies that IP policies and competition laws do not interfere with each other. However, section 4 of the Act elucidates upon the abuse of dominant position which is interlinked to IP rights. IPR and competition laws aim to regulate commercial environments while facilitating a common aim. IP laws ensure that each business is unique in nature while ensuring that the creators are adequately incentivized. Whereas, competition law ensures to strike a balance between the rights of manufacturers and the customers while restricting anti-competitive practices. It has been noted that IP laws may lead to the monopolization of a particular innovation or a creation and that this may be contrary to what competition law policies stand for. However, there are laws and agreements in place to regulate this. Thus, it can be concluded that inherently, IP laws and competition laws can coexist in commercial environments.