Competition Commission of India Journal on Competition Law and Policy | |
Biannual | |
2582-838X 2583-0767 | |
Competition Commission of India | |
Ms. Sweta Kakkad, Member, Competition Commission of India | |
@CCI | |
2020 | |
Law & Economics | |
English | |
Print & Online | |
011- 24664875 | |
[email protected] | |
XXXX | |
https://ccijournal.in | |
Competition Commission of India, 8th Floor, Office Block – 1 Kidwai Nagar (East), New Delhi PIN 110023 |
CCIJOCLP, Vol. 4, No. 2 [2023]
Published: 2024-04-01
Impact of merger on efficiency, stability, and competitiveness of public sector banks, a study beyond the see-saw of relevant and global turnover: finding a mechanism for adequate penalty, should over-the-top (ott) providers pay the telecom industry, book reviews, book review: competition law in south asia: policy diffusion and transfer, market study report on the dynamics of competition in the indian mining sector with a focus on iron ore.
Intellectual Property and Competition Law
Definition of the Institute’s research topics begins with a spatial matrix comprised of three research axes.
- Principles and Functions of Intellectual Property Law and Competition Law - Configuration of Intellectual Property and Competition Law - Intellectual Property and Competition Law in Different Economic Areas
These research axes each contain numerous research priorities that can be redefined over time.
See all Position Statements
Position Statement on Modernisation of European Copyright Rules
Research Axis I. Principles and Functions of Intellectual Property Law and Competition Law
Research Axis II. Configuration of Intellectual Property and Competition Law
Research Axis III. Intellectual Property and Competition Law in Different Economic Areas
Intellectual property law and competition law have the complementary goal to create incentives for investment in research and development. In the continuous evaluation of the available mechanisms, economic parameters play an important role, as do fundamental rights and ethical considerations. The emergence of dysfunctional effects can be prevented primarily through a functioning balance of interests.
As part of a system of comprehensive market regulation, intellectual property law and competition law pursue complementary goals (the so-called complementarity theory). Both are committed to the same objectives of providing incentives for investment in research and development and prohibiting imitations without remuneration, while at the same time maintaining competitive pressure. In prohibiting anticompetitive conduct, competition law provides a framework in which competitive behaviour can develop, while unfair competition law provides rules for fair competition. Through intellectual property law, the legislator intervenes in these competitive processes by recognising the individual rights of market participants.
However, as regards intellectual property rights, one can observe that they are increasingly being used for purposes beyond the goal of promoting innovation, e.g. as a commodity and objects of investment, or merely strategic instruments in competitive struggle. This shift in function poses considerable challenges for research and legal practice, since it is by no means clear how such new functions are to be assessed from the perspective of legal policy, and how legitime and illegitimate use of rights can be distinguished. On the other hand, new innovation models are also being developed, where the use of intellectual property rights is increasingly employed to underpin cooperation rather than (only) exclusivity (e.g. creative commons and open innovation).
Economics, including various parameters such as efficiency and securing economic freedom, plays a decisive role with respect to market regulation law. Intellectual property law and competition law are a part of this with their common goal of promoting innovation. Economics provides decisive insights in the process of a continuous evaluation, further development and adaptation of legal instruments. However, a purely economic, efficiency-oriented approach ultimately falls short. Social needs, the dynamics of market behaviour and values beyond economic welfare must also be incorporated into the concept of comprehensive market regulation law. These aspects can be addressed, for example, through the principles of business ethics and, above all, through an internal balancing of interests within intellectual property law. In both fields of intellectual property and competition law, there is a particular need to create a balance between the economic incentives for individuals and the interests of third parties as well as the general public. For example, copyright sets economic incentives for market participants. At the same time it protects the immaterial interests of creators and is intended to secure cultural diversity – values which cannot be represented in monetary terms alone. One must also take into account the collision between fundamental rights (e.g. protection of property, the right to life, health, freedom of expression, etc.) when designing the scope of protection and the exceptions and limitations.
In the field of competition law, traditionally the the criterion of efficiency, on the one hand, and the securing of economic freedom, on the other, have traditionally stood in collision. But also here, a holistic approach can be pursued. Thus, the protection of open markets can and should be committed to equal opportunities for all economic operators. In the law against unfair competition, the criterion of fairness is of prime importance. Its relevance is particularly apparent in the context of the development of the digital economy where business models build on use of masses of personal data can hardly be evaluated on purely economic terms.
Whether and, if so, to what extent the existing regimes governing intellectual property and competition law fullfil their functions or whether they sometimes provoke dysfunctional effects is a core element and the starting point of basic legal research. How such regimes are to be designed and applied and which criteria play a role in the interaction beyond the efficiency-oriented functional consideration in order to create optimal incentives for innovation in the broadest sense is a question that is in need of constantly being re-examined in different contexts.
“Innovation”, including its emergence, dissemination and protection, is complex, context dependent and culture specific. Innovation also has social, ethical as well as legal policy implications. Innovation can have positive or negative effects on society, social structures, the economy, environment and ethical values, which need to be adequately evaluated and addressed. In this respect, the focus is on the interaction and exchange between innovation and society.
The term “innovation” is complex. It includes, among other things, new developments in products, processes, services and structures that are introduced, accepted and disseminated in the market economy. In this context, innovation not only refers to technological advances – which are often only elements of the more comprehensive innovation process – but also to new behavioural and organisational developments in society. Thus, this encompassing term is not limited to specific products and processes that are commonly used as a yardstick for measuring and quantifying innovation (such as for the purpose of creating innovation rankings); rather, it also includes new developments that are regarded as innovation in different cultures (such as indigenous and local communities).
The emergence, dissemination and acceptance of innovation are equally context-dependent. Although individual, personal or entrepreneurial accomplishments can make a significant contribution, these are influenced by societal factors, such as culture, traditions, values and law. This is not only evident in relation to innovation processes based on sustainable collective behaviour (e.g. open innovation, user-generated content, agricultural development), but also with respect to innovations resulting from traditional industrial models of research and development.
Innovation is generally seen as a relevant contributor to economic growth, as well as to cultural and social development. The potential increase in social and economic prosperity through increased production efficiency, improvements in business and production methods, increasing convenience in daily life and creating culturally relevant information is, for example, among its desirable effects. However, this does not mean that innovation has an exclusively positive impact on society. Its development and resulting risks can lead to high social costs, while its social return can be jeopardised by an insufficient dissemination in society. For example, innovation in cases involving the use of human embryos, the genetic modification of humans and animals, unlawful access to genetic resources and traditional knowledge and other acts against public order and common decency, can collide with certain ethical principles and human rights. In addition, innovation can be accompanied by extremely negative consequences, such as environmental hazards, unemployment, economic crises, etc. It is also obvious that the business sector has neglected certain areas where innovation is needed, which should lead to consider a more prominent role of the State to influence the innovation process. Further, the advantages of innovative processes do not always (readily) reach everyone.
With this background in mind, civil society and the scientific community are now paying greater attention to innovations that correspond to certain social values and thus offer increased benefits for society. Innovations are needed that, alongside the goals of economic development, also support goals of ecological and social development (“sustainable” or “social innovation”), that do not stand in conflict with society’s moral values (“ethical innovation”) and whose unknown effects are the subject of an objective risk management in order to identify and protect potential victims.
Within the scope of basic research on the subject of innovation, the aim is to understand the different conditions under which innovation emerges, develops and becomes accepted, or is ignored or rejected by society. In this context, social values and the rule of law must be taken into account in order to determine which innovations are desirable. The resulting findings can be an important source of research for other main areas of research, in particular with regard to the incentive mechanisms offered.
An Examination of the Inventive Step Requirement in AI-related Inventions under the European Patent Convention and in the Practice of the European Patent Office
Anna Chiettini
CRISPR/Cas Technology, Innovation and Regulation
Reto M. Hilty, Pedro Henrique D. Batista, Ezgi Ediboğlu Sakowsky, Tobias Endrich-Laimböck, Elisabeth Hofmeister, Daria Kim, Matthias Lamping, Peter R. Slowinski, Miriam Steinhart
Grand Challenges
Reto M. Hilty, Carolina Banda, Michał Barycki, Pedro Henrique D. Batista, Francisco Beneke, Ezgi Ediboğlu Sakowsky, Tobias Endrich-Laimböck, Rebeca Ferrero Guillén, Begoña González Otero, Jörg Hoffmann, Elisabeth Hofmeister, Daria Kim, Matthias Lamping, Peter R. Slowinski, Miriam Steinhart, Hanns Ullrich, Laura Valtere
Interactions Between Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Law
Prof. Dr. Josef Drexl, Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Reto M. Hilty, Yiqiong Chen, Artha Dermawan, Dr. Begoña González Otero, Jörg Hoffmann, Dr. Daria Kim, Shraddha Kulhari, Izv. Prof. Dr. Silke von Lewinski, Kateryna Militsyna, Dr. Valentina Moscon, Dr. Heiko Richter, Peter R. Slowinski, Dr. Klaus Wiedemann
Plant varieties as a vector of technology transfer: critical analysis with an innovation perspective
Dr. Nefissa Chakroun
The Right to Genetic Resources – Patent Law, Nagoya Protocol and Further Regulatory Options
Pedro Henrique D. Batista
Incentive theory forms the core of the economic justification for the current system of intellectual property rights. It is based upon two hypotheses. First, market failure is destined to occur in innovation-driven markets due to both the public goods attributes of ideas and a lack of inherent market mechanisms to adequately protect the originators of innovative ideas. As a result, imitation ensues at an undesirably higher rate than the creation of new and socially valuable ideas. Second, the allocation of exclusive, fixed-term property right is the best method for remedying the market failure. This foundational theory has been championed and challenged throughout the literature.
Research at the Institute examines the incentive theory by integrating methods and findings from other disciplines in order to determine the potential impact of intellectual property rights in specific markets.
Motivation for innovation or creative behaviour varies in nature. It may be personal (e.g. an artist’s intrinsic need to express creativity), social (e.g. a researcher’s desire for professional recognition) or market-dependent (e.g. a firm’s pursuit of financial gain). From a regulatory perspective, the critical question is whether existing legal mechanisms adequately account for these various motivations in order to support their effects.
Incentives for dynamic and innovative behaviour on the part of market participants are primarily based on competitive pressure. In this context, competition law plays an important role. Its function is to protect the competitive process against restrictions which result from the conduct of individual market participants. Competition law must be applied in such a way as to create optimal conditions for innovation. On its own, however, competition law is unable to generate incentives. Specific interventions in free competition may be necessary. In particular by vesting, under certain conditions, a privileged position in individual competitors, those incentives resulting from competition may be maintained or even strengthened. The current system of intellectual property rights is largely based on this economic justification.
This underlying incentive theory is based on a two-part hypothesis. The first presumption is that market failure, brought about largely by the public goods attributes of ideas, is destined to occur due to a lack of inherent market mechanisms which adequately protect such ideas from duplication (so-called free-riding). As a result, imitation ensues at an undesirably higher rate than the creation of new and socially valuable ideas. The second essential premise of the incentive theory is that a system based on an exclusive right provides an effective means of preventing such undesireable market behaviour.
Historically, other theories – such as labour theory or natural rights theory – have been put forth to justify the current system of intellectual property. Indeed, such theories are still put forth today. However, the incentive theory indisputably occupies the most prominent position among them. In particular, it is central to the question whether existing legal regimes are capable of adequately fulfilling their function, or to what extent modifications are necessary.
It is important, however, to take note of criticisms of the incentive theory. For instance, it has been argued that other external incentive mechanisms – e.g. price regulation or grants – may be equally and in certain environments even better suited to stimulating innovation. Intellectual property rights (IPRs) can also produce various adverse effects (e.g., the so-called tragedy of anti-commons) – a point which has been much discussed in economics-oriented literature. Criticism of the incentive theory has also come from the fields of cognitive and behavioural psychology. Social science research has called the market failure premise into question by theorising that external rewards are, in many instances, unnecessary to induce artistic and technological innovation. IPRs based on abstract economic logic may even lead to dysfunctional effects in certain constellations, hindering rather than enhancing innovation and creativity.
Against this background, legal research in the area of intellectual property law must understand and take into account both theoretical as well as empirical findings from various other disciplines in order to determine the potential impact of IPRs in specific markets.
Coordination of Intellectual Property Law with the New European Data Law
Prof. Dr. Josef Drexl, Dr. Valentina Moscon, Dr. Heiko Richter
Personalized Medicine – Incentives from Exclusivities Provided by IP and Regulatory Law
Laura Valtere
We often observe a dissonance between the intended (ideal-typical) function of an intellectual property right and the use to which a given right is put under the influence of economic and technological factors. As regards the legal implications, such functional change often finds expression in extended legal protection that goes beyond the intended function of the intellectual property right. In this context a main area of research with three characteristics emerges which firstly examines the causes and consequence of various strategies of protection and competition. Secondly, the tensions between the goals of intellectual property protection and the modalities of that protection ought to be examined. Finally, the changing and emerging functions of intellectual property protection need to be contextualized in light of their implications for the scope of protection afforded by the law.
The notion of the “function” has an ambivalent status in intellectual property law. On the one hand, it is the key to understanding the substance and effect of rights. On the other hand, however, the complexity of the issues arising in that context bears a considerable risk of misunderstanding. A distinction has to be made between an “ideal-typical” or “essential” function as the very reason of the protection of a given intellectual property right, on the one hand, and the “legally protected” functions thereof, on the other. The ideal-typical function consists above all in the prohibition of any imitation by unauthorised third parties, and, with increasing importance, in the use of intellectual property rights as business assets. The “legally protected” functions can be distilled from the modalities of the protection afforded by the law. For example, while the ideal-typical function of trade marks consists in the identification of the corporate origin of a given product, the protection afforded by the law, such as in relation to marks with a reputation, may go further. In this sense, other functions of the trade mark are also “legally protected”.
In addition, intellectual property rights may also have economic or factual functions in connection with certain forms of (strategic) use or economic consequences, irrespective of whether or not it may be desirable to protect such forms of use. While ideal-typical functions are essentially a given, economic functions remain highly dynamic. That dynamic influences the legislature and judiciary, and thus concomitantly the nature and extent of legally protected functions. Such legal developments are in part reactions to economic and technological change, and in part economic and technological developments as such influence the behaviour of intellectual property rightholders (as in the context of digitalisation and cooperative or otherwise “open” forms of innovation).
Functional change typically leads to an extension of the subject-matter of protection (such as patents for computer programs or biotechnological innovation; trade mark protection for all sorts of shapes; copyright or data-base protection in the software sector), and of the scope of exclusivity (such as all types of use in trade mark law, and the making available right in copyright law), as well as the independence of the object of protection (such as the free transferability of trade marks, even only for selected classes of goods). The expansionist tendency of such functional change also favours tendencies towards overlaps between different intellectual property rights.
In principle, these phenomena are not new. What is new, however, is the level of refinement of market participants’ prosecution and exploitation strategies, and the vigour with which they are pursued. This can lead to a differentiation of the economic functions and potentially their solidification as legally protected functions.
A main area of research assessing on these developments has three characteristics:
First, the causes and consequences of differentiated strategies of protection and competition must be identified. In the area of patent law, this concerns, for example, the exploitation of inventions through R&D companies or non-practicing entities as a distinct business modell or the patenting behaviour of certain industries (e.g., in the ICT and pahrma sector), where the function of patents to protect innovation against imitation is superseded by strategic objectives. In the area of trade mark protection, a similar situation emerges concerning the new brand strategies of large companies or franchising practices.
Second, tensions between the goals of intellectual property protection, namely, the promotion of innovation, creativity and competition, and the means of realising these objectives, that is to say the grant of exclusive exploitation rights, must be resolved. Construing the scope for action and rights of exclusion afforded by intellectual property law in accordance with the objectives of that protection requires a normative trade-off. The modalities of this trade off will be identified and examined in the main areas of research mentioned under I.1 and 2.
Third, functional change impacts all system levels of intellectual property law, including the conditions and scope of protection, exceptions and limitations thereto, as well as remedies (e.g. injunctive relief or damages). Functional change also affects the law against unfair competition, the flexible sanctioning mechanisms of which often complement protection arising under intellectual property law. In general, we can say that this area is a moving target. The differentiation, and often the rebalancing of the functions of intellectual property protection, is a continuing process, influenced internally by legislative and judicial developments, and externally through economic and technological change. Given that the process involves innovation and creativity, it proceeds at a fast pace. Existing functions are typically not replaced by new ones but rather develop continuously.
Art Investments – The Applicability of Investor Protection and Transparency Regulations to the Art Market
Antonia von Appen
Die Konkurrenz von Urheberrecht und Lauterkeitsrecht im Binnenmarkt
Timmy Pielmeier
How does the Exhaustion of Rigths Adapt to the Blockchain Era?
Zhenni Chen
Prof. Dr. Josef Drexl, Prof. Dietmar Harhoff, Ph.D., Dr. Beatriz Conde Gallego, Peter R. Slowinski
Smart IP for Latin America
Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Reto M. Hilty, Juan Correa Gonzalo Nazar de la Vega
There is a consensus that the competitive actions of market players should adhere to certain rules of commercial fairness. Most legal systems (at the national, European or international levels) therefore provide for some level of regulation. The principle of fairness also plays a role in the shaping and interpretation of IP legislation (for instance in trade mark law with the criterion of “honest practice”). In addition, it has influenced the European Directive on trade secrets protection. In view of this, an investigation into the fundamental tenets of this principle is necessary to develop a uniform system of judgement.
In a market economy, the participants’ actions aim at improving their position in the market. That a competitor’s position may at the same time weaken does not justify any legal intervention. On the contrary, this is a structurally inherent aspect of competition, and intense competition is usually in the interest of consumers. There is, however, a consensus that the actions of market players in gaining a competitive advantage should adhere to certain rules of commercial fairness. Most legal systems thus regulate commercial activities under the aspect of fairness (in Germany, e.g., pursuant to the Act against Unfair Competition). These rules, at least indirectly, also influence the shaping of intellectual property rights.
In international law, the basic consensus on fair competition is expressed in the concept of “honest practices in industrial or commercial matters” (Art. 10 bis Paris Convention). In addition, European primary law has established the principle of undistorted competition, which consists not only in the legal principle of freedom of competition but also in the requirement of ethical behaviour in relation to competition. On this basis, at least in European law, the legal principle of fairness is achieved through a complementary system of unfair competition law (unfair trading rules) and intellectual property rights. This can best be seen in trade mark law, where the concept of “honest practices“ is an element to establish the limitations of an absolute right. The principle of fairness is, however, also reflected in the considerations underlying the protection of well-known marks and the CJEU jurisprudence on the functions of trade marks. It has furthermore influenced Directive 2016/943 on the protection of trade secrets. The recognition of commercial fairness as an autonomous legal concept could, at least indirectly, also have an impact on those areas which are not yet harmonised and where fair trading rules thus fulfil a genuine task of protection. This all the more so since the concept of fairness plays a role in assessing national laws restricting trade on the basis of EU primary law (Article 34 TFEU).
Therefore, the guiding principles for a coherent system of judgement (including aspects of business ethics) have to be developed on the basis of primary and secondary European law as well as, where appropriate, through a comparison of national principles and traditions. This system should overarch existing legal systems and allow, if necessary, for the adaptation of their scope. Such a system could serve as a basis for the interpretation of criteria open to discussion within the already harmonised areas of intellectual property law (like trade mark law). It could be of particular importance where the legally defined categories of existing IP rights do not provide clear answers as to their application in new technological and economic constellations.
Competition Law Control of Excessive and Unfair Prices of Pharmaceuticals: An EU and South African Perspective
Isaac Kundakogo Kunko
Fairness als Rechtsprinzip – Die anständigen Marktgepflogenheiten der Digitalwirtschaft
Stefan Scheuerer
Local Famous Trademarks in China: Towards Reasonable and Appropriate Governance
Shaping Europe’s Digital Future: Rethinking EU Copyright and Related Rights Remuneration Mechanisms for Outputs Generated by Artificial Intelligence Systems
Artha Dermawan
Methodological questions constitute a central element of the legal order. In its classical function, legal methodology aims at ensuring the consistent application and interpretation of existing legal norms. The need for taking recourse to the findings of other disciplines also arises in this context, for example, when indeterminate legal terms require definition or when a statutory provision needs to be interpreted in order to achieve the objectives of the field of law. The question of how insights from other disciplines can be incorporated into legal reasoning arises even more so when it comes to the evaluation of legal norms, the problem of an optimal design of regulations or concerning the definition of the objectives of a particular field of law. This is particularly true in the areas of intellectual property law, unfair competition law and the law against restraints of competition.
Methodological questions arise in all fields of law. The classical function of legal methodology is to ensure a consistent interpretation and application of existing legal norms. In this regard, there is a need to draw on the methodical and substantive knowledge of other disciplines, for example, when indeterminate legal concepts need to be defined or when the interpretation of the law requires a consideration of legislative objectives.
The need for interdisciplinary approaches is all the more necessary, not only when a mere interpretation of existing law is at issue, but also concerning the evaluation or the optimal design of legal norms. Here, the particular methodological challenge consists in making theories and methodological findings of other disciplines usable for the legislative process – e.g. economics, behavioural sciences, innovation, technology and creativity research. This challenge includes the identification and selection of relevant findings, their integration into the application and design of the law, and finally the further development and refinement of the legal instruments themselves.
This mechanism is of particular importance for the evolution of legal methodology with regard to competition law and intellectual property law in addition to the purely intradisciplinary development of, for example, comparative law. These areas of law are characterised by the co-existence of different regulatory layers (national, European and international) and by a plurality of legal methods. This results in inconsistencies, which can be mitigated by means of a further development and refinement of legal methods. In addition, the constant change in technologies and market conditions requires flexibility in the regulatory concepts of these fields of law. Therefore, in these fields of law the legislator, in attempting to achieve legal certainty, has often resorted to indeterminate and open legal terms.
Considering its economics-based concepts, competition law can hardly be interpreted and applied solely by resorting to the doctrine of classical methodology. The need for a consistent methodology increases even more where competition economics runs up against its own theoretical limits with regard to the objective of promoting innovation. The neo-classical instruments of competition economics have proved to beone-sidedly oriented towards static (price) competition. Thus, neoclassical economic thinking appears to be less suitable for securing dynamic competition. Therefore, a paramount methodological challenge exists in developing tools for detecting restraints on innovation competition.
Also in the field of unfair competition law, fundamental methodological questions arise. Here, the fundamental premises and objectives of this legal area – for example, with regard to consumer protection – are not clearly defined and doubts also arise with regard to the legal methodology. In particular, the interpretation of indeterminate legal terms as well as the interplay of purely national and European norms need to be clarified. Above all, it is necessary here to interpret and apply indeterminate and open legal concepts with regard to the permissibility of new business models. Finally, the question arises whether and how insights from behavioural economics can be drawn on.
With regard to intellectual property law, methodological challenges are particularly evident where the need for and the legitimacy of creating new intellectual property rights is being discussed. In addition, it must be ensured that the application of generally applicable intellectual property rights also leads to convincing solutions if these rights might have dysfunctional effects in a specific market context or if rights holders use intellectual property rights in a dysfunctional way. For the identification of - desired and undesirable - effects of existing intellectual property rights, the availability and informative value of empirical findings must also be examined. Finally, fundamental methodological questions arise in cross-border contexts, whether it is the development of the European intellectual property rights systems in the multi-level system or the coordination of conflicting international agreements.
Aktionärsstruktur und Wettbewerb: Gefährden horizontal-diversifizierte Großaktionäre durch ihr Netzwerk aus Minderheitsbeteiligungen den Wettbewerb?
Jonas Weller
Meca-Medina-Test des EuGH – Berücksichtigung sportspezifischer außerwettbewerblicher Faktoren im europäischen Kartellrecht
Tassilo Mürtz
Indian Competition Law Review (ICLR) is a biannual, peer-reviewed journal published by the National Law University, Jodhpur. The Centre for Competition Law and Policy (CCLP) assists in the process of publication of the same. The Indian Competition Law Review was launched in 2014. This journal serves as a platform for understanding existing trends as well as setting out new ideas with the vision to promote interdisciplinary research in the field of competition law and policy making. Each issue of ICLR covers different topics of interest in the field of competition law as well as latest developments on the policy front of the same. The journal seeks to maintain a balance between practical contributions and academic contributions and accepts submissions from professionals, academicians as well as law students. Every submission undergoes a rigorous blind review process. We invite you to contact us as well as provide your invaluable contribution to the journal. Feel free to access our Call for Papers and Submission Guidelines . Our previous issues are available in the “Archives” section of the header.
Journal Particulars
Frequency: Bi-annual Language: English Starting year: 2014 Format of publication: Online
Publisher’s Details
Registrar, National Law University Jodhpur
Address: National Law University Jodhpur, Nagour Road, Mandore, Rajasthan, 342304 Ph No: +91-291-2577530 Email Id: [email protected] Site: https://nlujodhpur.ac.in/ Publisher’s display of the Journal: https://nlujodhpur.ac.in/journal/8
add to folder:
Find out more about Lexology or get in touch by visiting our About page.
In a landmark decision, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has limited the European Commission’s (EC) ability to review mergers that fall outside thresholds at the EC level and in the Member States seeking to refer the review to the EC, emphasizing the need for clear jurisdictional boundaries. For now, the decision removes significant regulatory uncertainty, especially for transactions involving targets with little or no revenue in the EU but that may have emerging competitive significance as an innovator or otherwise.
The 3 September 2024 ECJ judgment held that the EC had exceeded its authority by asserting jurisdiction over the Illumina/Grail merger under Article 22 EU Merger Regulation (EUMR). The ECJ overturned the judgment of the General Court (GC) of 13 July 2022 and annulled the EC’s decision to accept requests from national European competition authorities that the EC review the proposed Illumina/Grail merger (see WilmerHale’s previous client alerts here and here for more background).
Under Article 22 EUMR, a Member State may request the EC to review a transaction (in EUMR parlance “a concentration”) that does not meet EU merger control thresholds but affects trade between Member States and threatens to significantly affect competition within the territory of the Member State(s) making the request. In a departure from past practice, the EC’s 2021 guidance on the application of Article 22 had sought to make referrals possible not only for transactions that meet the notification thresholds of the referring Member States. The ECJ held that the EC had overstepped its jurisdiction by attempting to review Illumina’s acquisition of Grail, which met neither the EU merger control thresholds nor the domestic thresholds for national merger control review in the referring Member States. The EC’s 2021 guidance sought to catch these types of transactions through a broad interpretation of Article 22 EUMR.
The judgment has important implications for parties to transactions. It removes the uncertainty caused by the EC’s attempt to widen Article 22 EUMR’s scope. More concretely, Illumina announced in December 2023 that it had abandoned its attempt to acquire Grail but, because of the judgment, it is no longer liable for the €432 million fine that had been imposed by the EC for gun jumping.
I. The ECJ’s Illumina/Grail Judgment
The EU merger review system differs from some other jurisdictions, including the United States and China, in that the merger filing thresholds are jurisdictional . That is, the EC (and most Member States) cannot review a merger when the applicable thresholds are not met. Most such thresholds are turnover-based. This led some to have concerns that acquisitions involving small companies with significant future competitive potential sometimes fell through the cracks of the merger review system. That issue came to a head in Illumina/Grail .
1. Act 1: EC Jurisdictional Claims are Supported by the GC
After receiving a complaint regarding the Illumina/Grail transaction, the EC invited Member States’ competition authorities to submit requests for the EC to examine the proposed deal. Five Member States submitted such a request, citing Article 22 as the applicable legal basis.
The EC’s decision to intervene was controversial and Illumina challenged the EC’s jurisdiction. The GC dismissed Illumina’s legal action. This judgment broadened the scope of Article 22 referrals and led potentially to scrutiny of transactions that otherwise would not have been reportable in the EU. 1 These would include so-called killer acquisitions, where the buyer acquires a target with little or no turnover but significant future competitive potential.
Illumina and Grail each appealed the GC’s judgment.
2. Act 2: Key Takeaways from the ECJ’s Reversal
On 3 September, the ECJ annulled the GC’s judgment and, in turn, the EC’s decision to review the proposed Grail acquisition. The ECJ found that Article 22 EUMR did not allow national competition authorities to refer to the EC mergers that do not meet national thresholds for review. The ECJ accordingly ruled that the EC had overstepped its authority by attempting to review the merger.
In its press release, the ECJ stated that “ The Commission is not authorised to encourage or accept referrals of proposed concentrations without a European dimension from national competition authorities where those authorities are not competent to examine those proposed concentrations under their own national law .” The judgment emphasizes that the EC’s overly-broad construction of Article 22 could undermine the legal certainty that companies need when planning mergers.
It is common ground that Article 22 allows a Member State that does not have its own system of merger control to request that the EC review a transaction/concentration that affects its territory despite it not meeting the thresholds for EUMR application. The question at issue in Illumina/Grail was whether a Member State may refer such a concentration to the EC despite the Member State having its own domestic merger control review system and the concentration not meeting the threshold for review under that national system.
The ECJ’s judgment turns on the interpretation of Article 22 and relies on the complete arsenal of interpretative tools offered by EU law:
The GC and ECJ agreed that the text of Article 22 itself is inconclusive: Although a literal reading of Article 22 EUMR allows a Member State to refer to the EC “any concentration” that satisfies the conditions of referral under that Article, this still required determining what exactly these conditions were.
In this regard, the GC considered it appropriate to carry out a historical interpretation to determine the intent of the EU legislature when it enacted Article 22 EUMR.
The ECJ found, that it was clear from the supporting documents and from the travaux préparatoires invoked by the GC, that the EU legislature had accepted that certain concentrations which could affect the internal market would nonetheless escape an ex-ante review by the EC under the EUMR because they failed to meet its thresholds. None of those documents envisaged the referral mechanism as a “corrective mechanism” that would allow referral of any concentration falling below the EUMR thresholds, irrespective of whether that concentration fell within the national merger control system of the Member State making the request.
The ECJ next concluded that all the factors that the GC had considered as part of its “contextual interpretation” were inconclusive.
By contrast, siding with the interpretation advocated by Illumina and Grail, the ECJ highlighted that the replacement of a national authority by the EC under Article 22 EUMR presupposes that the authority responsible domestically for the ex-ante control of concentrations has jurisdiction to review the referred concentration, in particular because the transaction meets the applicable national thresholds.
The ECJ then analysed the GC’s “teleological” or purposive interpretation of the EUMR.
The ECJ’s ruling also nullifies the €432 million fine imposed on Illumina by the EC for gun jumping, a financial penalty that had been another point of contention in the case. Indeed, all the subsequent decisions taken by the EC in the course of its investigation, including the fining decision, have been deprived of their legal basis by the ECJ’s judgment invalidating the EC decision to accept the requests to investigate the merger.
II. Implications of the Judgment for EU Merger Control
The ECJ’s judgment has several significant implications for EU Merger Control and the broader regulatory landscape.
Indeed, outgoing Executive Vice-President Margrete Vestager released a statement only minutes after the publication of the ECJ’s judgment. She highlighted that there continues to be a need to review mergers that have a competitive impact in Europe regardless of their size. She referred to “killer acquisitions” and companies with limited turnover which may still play a significant competitive role on the market, as a start-up with significant potential, or as an important innovator.
Vestager also observed that the EC will continue to accept referrals made under Article 22 EUMR by Member States that do have jurisdiction over a concentration under their national rules where the applicable legal requirements are met. She referred to several Member States having introduced provisions allowing them to request the notification of transactions that do not meet national thresholds, in situations where they might have a significant competitive impact. This development could mean that there is no need to revise the EUMR because many Member States will have jurisdiction to review mergers that do not meet turnover-based thresholds, and the EC therefore can accept referrals of such mergers. However, it should be noted that certain Member States such as Germany and Austria, which have amended their national rules to include transaction value-based thresholds to catch more deals falling below turnover thresholds, have indicated that they were not generally inclined to refer such transactions to the EC under Article 22 EUMR.
More interesting therefore is the reaction by France’s competition authority, 2 which announced mere hours after the publication of the ECJ’s judgment that it will pursue mergers that harm competition in France with all tools available to it, including antitrust laws and that it would consider revisiting its own jurisdictional thresholds (although this would require a legislative amendment). This is in line with the judgment itself where the ECJ explicitly stated that Member States could always revise their own thresholds.
Why us should help european efforts to fix sep licensing *, the european court of justice clarifies the scope of legal professional privilege under eu law *, obligations for deployers, providers, importers and distributors of high-risk ai systems in the european union’s artificial intelligence act *, choice-of-law agreements in international contracts *, patent protection for ai creations - landmark decision by the german federal court of justice *.
If you would like to learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email [email protected] .
Competition Law & The Digital Markets, Competition & Consumer Act - Latest News - Learn Live
Competition Law - 2024 Virtual Conference
We use some essential cookies to make this website work.
We’d like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.
We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.
You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.
You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.
The CMA is investigating concerns regarding the sale of Oasis concert tickets by Ticketmaster, including how so-called ‘dynamic pricing’ may have been used.
Action follows reports by fans of significant issues with Ticketmaster
CMA calls for evidence from fans to share their experience
Concerns over whether buyers were given clear and timely information, and whether consumer protection law was breached
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has today launched an investigation into Ticketmaster regarding the sale of Oasis tickets for the band’s upcoming reunion tour, including how so-called ‘dynamic pricing’ may have been used.
The CMA is scrutinising whether the sale of Oasis tickets by Ticketmaster may have breached consumer protection law. The investigation will consider a variety of things including whether:
The CMA is at the initial stage of its investigation and will now be engaging with Ticketmaster and gathering evidence from various other sources, which may include the band’s management and event organisers. It should not be assumed that Ticketmaster has broken consumer protection law. The CMA will also consider whether it is appropriate to investigate the conduct of anyone else in relation to the matter.
As part of its information gathering, the CMA is inviting fans to submit evidence of their experiences in relation to the purchase or attempted purchase of Oasis tickets. Fans are being asked to provide their evidence through CMA connect and, where possible, to include any screenshots they may have taken as they progressed through the purchasing process.
So-called ‘dynamic pricing’, where a business adjusts its prices according to changing market conditions including high demand, is becoming increasingly prevalent across a number of different markets and sectors. This is not the first time it has raised concerns among fans of live sporting and music events. While the practice is not automatically unlawful, it may breach consumer protection or competition law in certain circumstances. The CMA will investigate how it may have been used in this instance and the information buyers were given regarding the price they would pay as they went through the process of buying tickets and importantly, before they reached the check-out.
Consumer law is clear – ticket sales sites must be transparent in their dealings with consumers and give clear and accurate information about the price people have to pay. Failure to do so may breach the law.
Sarah Cardell, Chief Executive of the CMA, said:
It’s important that fans are treated fairly when they buy tickets, which is why we’ve launched this investigation. It’s clear that many people felt they had a bad experience and were surprised by the price of their tickets at check-out. We want to hear from fans who went through the process and may have encountered issues so that we can investigate whether existing consumer protection law has been breached. The CMA also welcomes the government’s recent announcement that it will consult on measures to provide stronger protections to consumers in the ticketing sector, wherever they buy their tickets. This has been a priority focus for the CMA for several years, having previously taken enforcement action and recommended changes to improve the secondary tickets market. We are committed to working closely with government to tackle the longstanding challenges in the ticket market.
In addition to the investigation launched today, the CMA has also published its response to a letter from the Secretaries of State at the Department for Business and Trade and Department for Culture, Media and Sport on the issues surrounding live event ticket sales. The letter sets out the CMA’s view that more protections are needed for consumers buying tickets on the secondary market, as we have previously set out in our proposals to government in 2021 . The CMA welcomes the government’s commitment to consult on measures to improve consumer protections in this sector and will work closely with them to get the best outcomes for fans and fair-dealing businesses.
The CMA is separately considering broader competition and consumer issues raised by so-called ‘dynamic pricing’. The letter notes that the government may include measures relating to ‘dynamic pricing’ in its ticketing consultation, and the CMA will assist the government should it seek to develop policy in this area.
The CMA welcomes responses to today’s call for evidence, by 5pm on Thursday 19 September 2024.
If you’re seeking advice or support, contact the relevant consumer advice organisation in your area . The CMA is not able to respond to or advise on individual complaints but will use the information gathered from its call for evidence in its investigation.
More information can be found on the CMA’s Ticketmaster investigation case page .
The following links open in a new tab
Is this page useful.
Don’t include personal or financial information like your National Insurance number or credit card details.
To help us improve GOV.UK, we’d like to know more about your visit today. Please fill in this survey (opens in a new tab) .
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Competition Law: Exploring the Range of Research Paper Topics. Competition law, also known as antitrust law in some jurisdictions, is a crucial area of legal study that aims to promote fair competition and prevent anti-competitive practices in the marketplace. It plays a vital role in maintaining a level playing field for businesses ...
Competition Law Dissertation Topic Examples. 3rd Oct 2019 Law Dissertation Topic Reference this In-house law team. Competition Law aims to promote healthy competition in a market by regulating anti-competitive conduct by companies and organisations. Examples of such anti-competitive practices are firms fixing prices, or dominating a market ...
Journal of Competition Law & Economics | Oxford Academic
Explore OUP's Higher Education Resource: Competition policy and economics from Competition Law (10th edn) by Richard Whish and David Bailey Sign up for free email alerts to get the latest research straight to your inbox.
Publishes peer-reviewed original research dedicated to competition law, economics and policy, including developments in the United States, the European Union, and other regions and nations.
Competition law, known in the United States as antitrust law, is law that promotes or maintains market competition by regulating anti-competitive... | Explore the latest full-text research PDFs ...
Competition law - known as antitrust law in the United States and anti-monopoly law in China and Russia - aims to ensure market competition and consumer welfare by regulating anti-competitive conduct in domestic economies. Until the mid-20th century, there were less than ten competition regimes worldwide. 1 However, upon the end of the ...
Some question the need for competition law to be predictable.3 Others have advocated determining the legality of business conduct through context-specific economic analysis of its competitive effect,4 thereby undermining aspirations towards a system of clear and generalised obligations.5 This has been especially pronounced in scholarship ...
This chapter presents an introduction to competition law covering the development of competition law, the experience of the United States, economics and competition law, and competition law resources. Competition law is the legislation that ensures competition is protected from unrestrained market power in free market economies. The primary purpose of competition law is to remedy some of the ...
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles. Consult the top 50 dissertations / theses for your research on the topic 'Competition law.'. Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the ...
In doing so, we hope to demonstrate how the CLI can facilitate new empirical research on comparative and international competition law. Competition Gone Global: The Comparative Competition Law and Enforcement Datasets Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 16(2): 411-443 (2019) By Anu Bradford, Adam Chilton, Christopher Megaw, and Nathaniel Sokol
Topics include the harmonization and coordination of competition laws, cooperation between enforcement agencies, international judicial assistance, and the role of trade agreements and the WTO in ...
Thesis topics could address the legality of border enforcement practices, the rights of refugees and asylum seekers, and the impact of new immigration policies on families and communities. Additionally, the intersection of immigration law with human rights provides a compelling area for legal research and discussion.
Research. In cooperation with Oxford University's Centre for Competition Law and Policy, the CLC edits the Journal of Antitrust Enforcement (JAE), which is published by Oxford University Press. ... The CLC consults with competition agencies around the world on the design and implementation of competition law. Among other topics, the Center ...
The latest competition legislation of India is a civil legis-lation and mandates the Commission to abide by the principles of natural justice.16 Cartels and bid rigging are the most pernicious anti-competitive practices, yet the law stipulates a rebuttable presumption regime in favour of the respondents.
Competition law is an economics-based law designed to regulate anti-competitive conduct of market participants. This article examines the economic circumstances in which India acquired its modern competition law and evaluates the sufficiency of this law for recent developments in India's digital economy. ... Centre for Business Research ...
Research and Information Research Methods. Social Work ... "Competition law" (also known as "antitrust law") is specifically charged with protecting competition from restraints, so it can have a direct and powerful impact on lives anywhere. The aim of this short book is to make competition law accessible and understandable and to reveal ...
Meanwhile, the regulator in Australia, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, is notoriously active in promoting and enforcing (including, testing the limits of) the prohibitions on restrictive trade practices.This volume of the collection, Current Issues in Competition Law, covers various topics of considerable importance and concern.
Competition law is a relatively new area of interdisciplinary research concerning law, economics, and finance. With the publication of this journal, the Commission hopes to stimulate rigorous research and informed debate on contemporary issues in the field and apply the results for enforcement and advocacy.
Definition of the Institute's research topics begins with a spatial matrix comprised of three research axes. ... Competition law must be applied in such a way as to create optimal conditions for innovation. On its own, however, competition law is unable to generate incentives. Specific interventions in free competition may be necessary.
Indian Competition Law Review (ICLR) is a biannual, peer-reviewed journal published by the National Law University, Jodhpur. ... for understanding existing trends as well as setting out new ideas with the vision to promote interdisciplinary research in the field of competition law and policy making. Each issue of ICLR covers different topics of ...
The ECJ overturned the judgment of the General Court (GC) of 13 July 2022 and annulled the EC's decision to accept requests from national European competition authorities that the EC review the ...
There is also an internal 'competition' for resources (even within larger companies, and between various compliance topics)—where competition law is seen to be 'merely' punitive (rather than encouraging and incentivizing compliance activities), the compliance efforts may lose out in the internal allocation of resources to other ...
Google's Vice President of Global Ads, Dan Taylor, said in a statement that the company disagreed with U.K. officials as the core of the case rests on flawed interpretations of the ad tech sector.
The competition legislation relevant to the CMA's investigation is the Competition Act 1998. This case concerns the Chapter II prohibition, which prohibits the abuse of a dominant position which ...
The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 will, once it comes into effect, empower the CMA to fine those firms that do break consumer law up to 10% of their global turnover.