TV stations in Chennai and Mumbai published weekly TV guides covering their programmes exclusively and claimed the copyright protection. Arch TV Guide wanted to publish a comprehensive guide of TV programmes of both the

TV stations in Chennai and Mumbai published weekly TV guides covering their programmes exclusively and claimed the copyright protection. Arch TV Guide wanted to publish a comprehensive guide of TV programmes of both the stations but was prevented by TV stations, Chennai and Mumbai on the ground of copyright infringement. By preventing this, the TV stations sought to ensure that third parties did not reproduce their programme listing. Arch TV Guide complained to the Competition Commission of India (CCI) citing the Competition Act, 2002 and arguing that the TV stations, Chennai and Mumbai 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, 2002 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, Chennai and Mumbai contended that section 3(5) of the Competition Act, 2002 provided protection of their IPR, namely, copyright and prayed that the CCI should restrain Arch TV Guide from publishing the comprehensive guide. Arch TV Guide urged 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 ?