| |
| The Tax Publishers 2019 TaxPub(CL) 0765 (CCI) COMPETITION ACT, 2002,
Section 3
Where Vivo smartphones were adequately available in both the offline market as well as online market and there was no restriction on informants in dealing with other brands of smartphones, there was no competition concern in the entire matter and, thus, no case was made out for contravention of provisions of section 3(4) against the OPs.
|
Anti competitive agreements - Prohibition on online sale of mobile handsets - Whether act of opposite party is anti competitive -
KCPL (informant) was non-exclusive distributor for distribution of mobile handsets of Vivo (OP). KCPL filed information against opposite parties on the ground that Vivo strictly prohibited online sales of its products and mandated Minimum Operation Price (MOP) for handsets, which was anti competitive as per section 3(4) and 3(1) of the Act. Held: It was observed that Vivo smartphones were adequately available in both the offline market as well as on online market like Flipkart, Snapdeal, Amazon, Paytmmall, etc. There was no restriction on informants in dealing with other brands of smartphones. There was neither any entry or exit barriers nor foreclosure of competition in the market. Further, no consumer harm was evident because of restrictions placed by OPs upon the informants due to high inter-brand competition and availability of smartphones of many brands manufactured by different companies. There was no competition concern in the entire matter, thus, no case was made out for contravention of provisions of section 3(4) against the OPs.
REFERRED : M/s. K.C. Marketing v. OPPO Mobiles MU Private Limited. (Case No. 34 of 2018, Order dated 8-11-2018) : 2019 TaxPub(CL) 0103 (CCI)
FAVOUR : Against the informant
A.Y. :
IN THE COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|