The Dual Pillars of Progress: Exploring the IPR-Competition Law Interface in India

Introduction

Competition law and Intellectual property law stand as one of the most important components in the contemporary globalized and technology-oriented economy. Both the Competition Law and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Laws play an important role in the development of the global economy via a distinct legal framework and goals. The crossroads between these 2 laws represent multiple complexities and require an in-depth analysis of the interaction.

Intellectual Property (IP) rights refer to the set of rights that safeguards the “Creations” of an individual by the protection of the “Creations of Mind”, and are specifically awarded to works of literature, art, symbol, inventions, and designs, as it provides the creator with better advancements in technology and better products for the advancement of the customers and progress in the society.

Meanwhile, competition laws are meant to stop the “anti-competitive” conduct and foster market efficacy so that equitable and unaltered competition is maintained in the competitive market. IP rights, on the other hand, present a wholly different view by stemming from a probability of the conflict goals, for the promotion of innovation and preserving a competitive market.

Historical Context of Competition Law and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)-

During the Industrial revolution which took place in the 19^th Century, many scientific inventions and innovations took place, which were copied and misused by many people. It was during this time that the word ‘IPR’ was used. The Paris Convention was the first time the term ‘IPR’ was used, for the safeguard of industrial property on 20^th March, 1883. It was again used in the Berne Convention for the protection of artistic and literary works. These 2 conventions were known as the ‘Magna Carta of IPRs’. Trade Related Aspects of International Property Rights (TRIPS) and the World Intellectual Property Rights (WIPO) were formed as a result in 1995 and 1967, respectively.

Competition Law, meanwhile, was formed when the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 was enacted in the United States. The law was formed to protect small businesses from the large trusts and corporations that were formed during the time of the Industrial Revolution. In India, the Competition Act came from Articles 38 and 39 of the Indian Constitution, 1949; these articles ensure it is the duty of the state to prevent the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few.

While it is important to note that the antitrust laws were meant to protect the whole process of competition itself, rather than directing it to a particular “competitor”. It is also important to note that the primary function of the IP has never been interfered with by the Antitrust law itself, further acting as an “innovation incentive” in the form of protecting the creative innovation or protecting the identity of the individual.

At first glance, it may seem that both the Competition Law and the IP Law function independently from one another. However, the growth of the market and reliance on technology have been the cause of the intersection between the 2 in the globalized world. Further, it is to be noted that as soon as the creation of the asset is completed, the Property law is assigned; meanwhile, the rights are regulated by the competition law, which is the source of market power, which is IPR.

Competition Law in India-

The Competition Act of 2002 predominantly anchors the Legal system for competition law in India. Maintaining an equitable competition is the primary aim of this act and to prevent any instances of maintaining and anti-competitive conduct, while also safeguarding the welfare of consumers. The regulatory entity of the Competition Commission of India (CCI), which is designated under the Act as the regulatory entity for the enforcement of the legal provisions.  

The act further governs mergers and acquisitions that are deemed to have a significant and ‘lasting’ impact on the competition in the market. The act sets a “money limit” or “threshold”; if the merger is involved above a certain amount, it is necessary to inform the Competition Commission of India before considering the deal. The Competition Commission of India (CCI) further makes sure that the forces do not become so powerful that they can purchase the smaller businesses or hike prices for the consumers.

The Apparent Conflict: Exclusive IP Rights and the Free Market Competition-

An exemption to the “Reasonable” use of inventions and a limitation of the scope of competition law is provided under Section 3(5) of the Indian Competition Act, 2002. Also, under Section 4 of the Competition Act, it is subject to the misuse of the “Dominant Position” in the market; any exemptions to the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) are not observed under this section. Furthermore, this section does not prohibit or stop the “mere existence” of the dominant position, but rather the Act specifically does focus on the abuse of such a position.

The distinction between the IPR and the competition law is based on market dominance. While the competition law is meant to limit the power of the market that is exerted by the Intellectual Property Rights. The main sticking points between the 2 however lies beyond the fact that while patent laws mandate a brief monopoly that shields the firms that have designed or “Patented the product, the Antitrust laws, on the other hand allows a free entry without any barriers to be held for the “undue entry”.

It is also important to note that the consumers benefit greatly from the competition law by providing more efficient choices between the many and combating monopoly abuse, protecting the Intellectual Property (IP) helps in the growth of economic progress and innovation for the growth of the product creation. Both of the laws are equally beneficial and efficient for the consumers. For the recouping of the costs that are being incurred due to their groundbreaking innovation and the development of the product, make them entitled to legally stop any other competitors from generating a profit on their work which further motivates them to keep growing and forming more innovative products for the consumer, which is one of the reason why the Intellectual Property (IP) cannot be sidelined by the competition law.

Jurisdictional Tug of War-

One of the landmark cases involving the Competition Law and the IPR was that of Shamsher Kataria v. Honda Siel Cars Ltd, which is also called the ‘Automobile Spare Parts case’. It was clarified by the Competition Commission of India that ‘Safe Harbor’, which is provided under Section 3(5)(1), is a conditional exemption, not an “absolute shield”. The landmark case further clarified that the Competition Commission of India is not a substitute for IPR enforcement agencies. An IPR registered under a foreign country must prove that the foreign IPR has been validly recognized under the Indian Law, and the registration process is completed, and the grant is “imminent”.

Another Landmark case lies in that of Aamir Khan Productions v. Union of India^. It was held by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay that if the IP rights are used in a way that violates the Competition Act, the Competition Commission of India has every right to investigate the case. The court also considered the existence of ‘Jurisdictional Fact’, which refers to checking the power of the tribunal or the court to check the jurisdiction or the ‘Legal Power’ before starting the trial. The court ruled that the Competition Commission of India can do its own “pre-check” and also check if the case falls under its authority.

Conclusion-

Both the Competition Law and the Intellectual Property Law form the backbone of consumerism and are important aspects in the globalized world. The middle path between the intersections of the 2 can only be achieved by defining the clear boundaries of separation between both, as they both are the different sides of the same coin.  

Regarding the question of jurisdiction, India will benefit a lot from the well-defined legal structure of the Competition Commission of India. It is clearly defined in Section 3(5) of the Indian Competition Act, 2002, that the IPR goes beyond “reasonable conditions”; the Competition Law must step in to fill the gap caused by the IPR regime and bring it back to the Equilibrium. However, it must be noted that the relationship between both the IP and the Competition Law is compatible in nature, rather than conflicting. Thus, it is important to have a clearer line of separation to reduce the conflict between the two.

Author: Harman Singh Khanuja, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

Endnotes

1. Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, adopted 20 March 1883, as revised at Stockholm on 14 July 1967, 828 U.N.T.S. 305.

2. Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, adopted 9 September 1886, as revised at Paris on 24 July 1971, 1161 U.N.T.S. 3.

3. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), Annex 1C to the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, 15 April 1994, 1869 U.N.T.S. 299.

4. Competition Act, 2002, No. 12 of 2003, §§ 3, 4 & 3(5) (India).

5. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), “What is Intellectual Property?”, available at: https://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/ (last accessed June 2026).

6. Shamsher Kataria v. Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. & Ors., Case No. 03 of 2011, Competition Commission of India, order dated 25 August 2014.

7. Aamir Khan Productions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 1688; (2010) 112 Bom LR 3778.

8. Competition Commission of India, Advocacy Booklet on Competition Act, 2002, available at: https://www.cci.gov.in (last accessed June 2026).