Home       Top Rated       Submit Article     Advanced Search     FAQ       Contact Us       Lawyers in India       Law Forum     RSS Feeds     

Register your Copyright Online

We offer copyright registration right from your desktop click here for details.

Latest Articles | Articles 2014 | Articles 2013 | Articles 2012 | Articles 2011 | Articles 2010 | Articles 2009 | Articles 2008 | Articles 2007 | Articles 2006 | Articles 2000-05

Search On:Laws in IndiaLawyers Search

Mutual Consent Divorce in Delhi
We provide fast, cost effective and Hassle free solution.
Contact us at Ph no: 9650499965 (Divorce Law Firm Delhi)
File Caveat in Supreme Court
Contact Ph no: +9650499965

Main Categories
 Accident Law
 Animal Laws
 Aviation Law
 Bangladesh Law
 Banking and Finance laws
 Case Laws
 Civil Laws
 Company Law
 Constitutional Law
 Consumer laws
 Contracts laws
 Criminal law
 Drug laws
 Dubai laws
 Educational laws
 Employment / Labour laws
 Environmental Law
 family law
 Gay laws and Third Gender
 Human Rights laws
 Immigration laws
 Insurance / Accident Claim
 Intellectual Property
 International Law
 Juvenile Laws
 Law - lawyers & legal Profession
 Legal Aid and Lok Adalat
 Legal outsourcing
 Media laws
 Medico legal
 Pakistan laws
 Real estate laws
 Right To Information
 Tax Laws
 Torts Law
 Woman Issues
 Workplace Equality & Non-Discrimination
 Yet Another Category

More Options
 Most read articles
 Most rated articles

Subscribe now and receive free articles and updates instantly.


Published : September 13, 2012 | Author : Atin kumar Das
Category : Intellectual Property | Total Views : 5736 | Rating :

Atin kumar Das
Atin Kumar Das LL.M (National Law Institute University Bhopal) Now Lecturer in Law Haldia Law College

Trade Secrets & Competition Act : A bird’s eye view

Intellectual property rights create monopolies, while a competition law battles monopolies. How do the two policies interact? Is there a balance?

A trade secret has both monopoly value and use value, but only the former will normally be affected by misuse of the secret. On this basis, some courts have held that information cannot be considered property. Nevertheless, a comparison of the attributes of trade secrets with those of orthodox property reveals that some of the key attributes of orthodox property rights to create, use, alter, destroy, exchange etc. do seem to be shared by information. However, the problem arises due to the fact that once the secret is revealed, the usual ideas of legal and equitable title cannot be applied.

Trade Secrets, very broadly, are legal rights granted to creators and owners of works that are results of human intellectual creativity. These can be in the industrial, scientific, literary and artistic domains. They give their owners the right to exclude others from access to or the use of protected subject matter for a limited period of time. A trade secret can include a combination of elements that are in the public domain, if the trade secret constitutes “a unique, effective, successful and valuable integration of the public domain elements”. This principle simply recognizes that the choice of individually known components and techniques to create a working manufacturing process is often a difficult undertaking. Where at individual steps of a process there are a variety of alternatives, the choice made through much effort of specific ingredients, materials, conditions and steps in an actual working process constitutes a trade secret. This also gives them the subsequent right to license others to exploit the innovation when they themselves are unable to engage in large-scale commercial exploitation or for other reasons.

IPRs include:
(i) Copyrights;
(ii) Patents;
(iii) Trademarks;
(iv) Industrial designs; and
(v) Trade secrets.

The WTO’s Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), sets down minimum standards for many forms of intellectual property (IP) regulation. In line with her commitments to WTO, India has now in force The Competition Act, 2002, described as an improvement upon its predecessor Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act in terms of defining terms such as cartel, consumer and predatory pricing and turnover, provision for entering into arrangements with foreign agencies, deletion of unfair trade practices (UTPs), monopolistic trade practices (MTPs), abuses from dominant position and so on. Among the many such aspects and relevant clauses, we deal here only with those connected with intellectual property rights (IPRs). Section 3(5) of the Act primarily deals with IPRs.

Competition policy involves putting in place a set of policies that promotes competition in local and national markets, as well as legislation (competition law), judicial decisions and regulations specifically aimed at preventing anti-competitive business practices and unnecessary government interventions, avoiding concentration and abuse of market power. Competition law prevents artificial entry barriers and aims to remove monopolization of the production processes by encouraging entrance into industries by new players. The objectives of competition policy include the maximization of consumer and producer welfare, as well as maximizing efficiency in production. Well designed and effective competition laws promote the creation of an enabling business environment, which improves static and dynamic efficiencies and leads to efficient resource allocation and in which the abuse of market power is prevented mainly through competition.

Are Trade Secrets and Competition policy objectives conflicting?
IPRs and competition are normally regarded as areas with conflicting objectives. The reason is that IPRs, by designating boundaries within which competitors may exercise legal exclusivity (monopolies) over their innovation, they appear to be against the principles of static market access and level playing fields sought by competition rules, in particular the restrictions on horizontal and vertical restraints, or on the abuse of dominant positions. This legal monopoly may, depending on the unavailability of substitutes in the relevant market, lead to market power and even monopoly as defined under competition law. However, ensuring the exclusion of rival firms from the exploitation of protected technologies and derived products and processes, do not necessarily bestow their holders with market power given that it is not dominance per se that is prohibited in terms of competition laws, but the abuse of such dominance. There are rare cases where the protected technology can be totally divorced from the process that has been in existence, such that there often exist other technologies, which can be considered potential substitutes to confer effective constraints to the potential monopoly-type conduct of IPR holders.

Rather than conflicting, there are areas where IPRs and competition complement each other. By creating and protecting the right of innovators to exclude others from using their ideas or forms of expression, IPRs provide economic agents with the incentives for technological innovation and/or new forms of artistic expression. This will create more inputs for competition on the future market, as well as promote dynamic efficiency, which is characterized by increasing quality and diversity of goods, which is also the objective of competition policy. Moreover, IPRs may create a race for innovation, as firms compete to exploit first-mover advantages so as to gain IPR protection. Therefore, both IPRs and competition policy are necessary to promote innovation and ensure a competitive exploitation thereof. It is necessary therefore to ensure their co-existence.

Implications for regulatory authorities
Firstly, regulatory authorities need to ensure that IPRs are not abused. In the TRIPs agreement, the general considerations in paragraph 1 of the Preamble, read with Article 8(2), allows Members to take appropriate measures consistent with the TRIPs to prevent the abuse of intellectual property rights by rights holders. There are generally two approaches that have been adopted to prevent IPR abuse: compulsory licensing (an involuntary contract between a willing buyer and an unwilling seller imposed and enforced by the state) and parallel imports (goods brought into a country without the authorization of the patent, trademark or copyright holders after those goods were placed legitimately into the market elsewhere).

Article 31 of TRIPs provides for the grant of compulsory licenses, under a variety of situations,

Such as:
* the interest of public health;
* national emergencies;
* nil or inadequate exploitation of the patent in the country;
* anti-competitive practices by the patentees or their assignees; and
* Overall national interest.

Secondly, there are many implications regarding the interface between competition policy and IPR that needs to be taken heed of at all times. Competition authorities should determine each case involving IPRs on a carefully applied rule-of-reason approach. Although abuse of dominance laws can be applied to IPRs and appropriate remedies taken, such actions bear a high potential cost in terms of reducing incentives to innovate and should be used sparingly. Tying and full-line forcing based on IPR is another area calling for sensitive, rule of reason application of competition laws as competition authorities should not just stop patent holders from linking the sale of patented products to the purchase of goods, which are not part of the patent, or whose patent protection had lapsed, as some of the invented technologies may not be compatible, or bring full benefits unless they are used with specific standards present in the tied product.

Competition agencies, concerned about encouraging greater horizontal competition, should also not be too quick to take action against grant backs (an arrangement in which a licensee agrees to extend to the licensor the right to use certain of the licensee's IPR, most often in the form of improvements to the licensed technology).Grant-backs can have pro-competitive effects, especially if they are non-exclusive, as the licensee and the licensor can share risk and the licensor may be rewarded for making possible further innovation based on or informed by the licensed technology. Normal competition law, applied under a rule of reason standard, should be carried out to distinguish between “pro” and “anti” competitive cases where the requisite market power is conferred through IPR.
*Atin Kumar Das, Faculty, Haldia Law College,P.O – Hatiberia,Purba Medinipur 721657 W.B.

# Oxford v. Moss, (1979) 68 Cri 482. See also Hammond, R.G.: “Theft of Information”, 100 LQR 252 (1984).
# Routh v. Jones, (1947) 1 All ER 179, 181
# Note, “Nature of Trade Secrets and their Protection”, 42 Harv. L. Rev. 254, 257 (1928)
# Rivendell Forest Prods. Ltd. v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 28 F 3d 1042, 1046 (10th Cir. 1994)
# Competition policy and development, Prof Ajit Singh (Ref: ESRC Centre for Business Research Working Paper No. 246 (Dec 2002), Queens’ College, University of Cambridge)

Authors contact info - articles The  author can be reached at: atindas@legalserviceindia.com

1 2 3 4 5
Rate this article!     Poor

Most viewed articles in Intellectual Property category
• Advertising
• Bajaj Auto Limited
• Trademark Infringement and Remedies
• Copyright Societies
• Passing off under trademark
• Plagiarism
• Infringement of trademark and what constitutes honest practice in relation to trade and bussiness
• Trade Mark Law in India & Its Violation
• Originality Under Copyright Law-Is There Any Definite Standard?
• Patenting of Micro-Organisms in India: An Overview
• Competition Law and Intellectual Property Rights: Confronting Paradigms
• Product Patent & Exclusive Marketing Rights
• Section 25 of The Trade Marks Act, 1999
• Indian Copyright Software
• Author's moral Right
• Competition Law vis-a-vis IPR rights
Most recent articles in Intellectual Property category
• John Locke’s Labour Theory: A Justification of IPRs
• Infringement of Patents
• Novelty under the Designs Act,2000
• Major changes brought about by the Trademark Rules,2017
• Semiconductor Integrated Circuit-Prevent Chip Pirates
• Semi conductor integrated circuit lay out design protection
• Patent for technological companies
• International Commercial Arbitration
• Trademark infringement and passing off Indian pharmaceutical industry
• Protecting Tradition And Culture In India Development of A Sui Generis System
• De Jure Mobile Applications under the IP Law
• Sports and IPR
• Protecting Tradition and Culture in India: Development of A Sui Generis System
• The Effectiveness of the Remedies for Copyright Infringement
• National IPR Policy 2016
• Trademark Law in Music and Film Industry

Article Comments

there are no comments...

Post Your Comments


Your comments

Note : Your email address is only visible to admin, other members / users cannot see it.

You can use following FXCodes

BOLD : [b]
Italic : [i]

[b] Legal Services India [/b] is a [i]nice website[/i].
[url= http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/ ]click here to visit.[/url]

Legal Services India is a nice website.
Click here to visit


Note : Currently, user comments are moderated and will be posted only after approval.

Please login or register a new free account.

Random Pick
This article aims to focus on the work "undue hardship" and various component related to it , as used under the SECTION 35F OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT ANF 129 E OF THE CUSTOMS ACT. This analysis has been done using latest case laws on the point.

» Total Articles
» Total Authors
» Total Views
» Total categories

Law Forum

Legal Articles

Lawyers in India- Click on a link below for legal Services

lawyers in Chennai
lawyers in Bangalore
lawyers in Hyderabad
lawyers in Cochin
lawyers in Pondicherry
lawyers in Guwahati
lawyers in Nashik

lawyers in Jaipur
lawyers in New Delhi
lawyers in Dimapur
lawyers in Agra
Noida lawyers
lawyers in Siliguri

For Mutual consent Divorce in Delhi

Ph no: 9650499965
For online Copyright Registration

Ph no: 9891244487
Law Articles

lawyers in Delhi
lawyers in Chandigarh
lawyers in Allahabad
lawyers in Lucknow
lawyers in Jodhpur
Faridabad lawyers

lawyers in Mumbai
lawyers in Pune
lawyers in Nagpur
lawyers in Ahmedabad
lawyers in Surat
Ghaziabad lawyers

lawyers in Kolkata
lawyers in Janjgir
lawyers in Rajkot
lawyers in Indore
lawyers in Ludhiana
Gurgaon lawyers


India's Most Trusted Online law library
Legal Services India is Copyrighted under the Registrar of Copyright Act ( Govt of India) © 2000-2017
 ISBN No: 978-81-928510-1-3