As per the Rules of Bar Council of India, law firms are not permitted to solicit work and advertise. The only objective of this website is to provide information about Intellectual  Property Laws.
   

By clicking on the " I Agree" below the user acknowledges that :

  • He is visiting the site voluntarily for information only and that the contents of this website will not be taken or considered as legal advice.

  • He was not induced or invited by the firm or any of its associates for solicitation of any work of any sort through this website.

  • All the decisions taken by him relying on the information provided under this website are his personal decisions and the firm shall not be held liable for any consequence of any action thus taken by him.

   
I Agree
S.S.Rana-IPR-Law-Firm
ssrana-facebook   ssrana-twitter   ssrana-googleplus   ssrana-linkedin   ssrana-googleblog
Client Login
  Skip Navigation Links  





























E-COMMERCE AND COMPETITION LAW ISSUES

 
COMPETITION LAW
LAW RELATING TO START UPS
FOOD LAWS
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LAW
REAL ESTATE LAW
COMPANY FORMATION LAW
GOODS SERVICE TAX
FDI LAW
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER & JOINT VENTURE LAW
COMMERCIAL AGREEMENTS & CONTRACTS LAW
MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS
LAWS RELATING TO INSURANCE
LEGAL METROLOGY
LABOUR LAW
SPORTS LAW
MEDIA & COMMUNICATION LAW
TELECOMMUNICATION LAW
ECOMMERCE BUSINESS LAW
 
Privacy and Protection Issues in E-commerce
E-commerce and Competition Law Issues
E-commerce and IP related Issues
Jurisdiction in E-commerce IP Disputes
CORPORATE LAW FIRM
COMMERCIAL LAW FIRM
ENVIRONMENT LAW
GAMBLING LAWS
INDIAN STANDARD'S LAW (BIS)
ANTI CORRUPTION LAWS
LITIGATION AND INDIAN COURTS
 

With the advent and mushrooming of E-commerce companies in India, there have been several issues which have attracted competition law issues in the E-commerce Sector.

 

Recently, in the case of Ambitious Marketing v. Snapdeal.com & SanDisk Corporation- E Commerce Company Sanpdeal was accused by the Informant of engaging in anti-competitive practices in violation of Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 which provide for anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominant position.

 

In the case, Snapdeal had stopped the sale of Informant’s products in consequence of a list received from SanDisk Corporation, specifying the name of authorized channel partners. The Informant had further alleged that by such act Snapdeal and SanDisk were trying to prevent him from offering competitive prices which were much less as compared to the prices offered by other sellers.

 

In this case, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) held that insistence by SanDisk storage devices sold through online portals should be bought from its authorized distributors by itself cannot be considered as abusive and that Snapdeal.com had not engaged in purchase or sale of storage, rather it owns and manages a web portal that enables those seller to sell products web portal.

 

Another notable case which sparked off competition related issue Mr. Mohit Manglani v. M/s Flipkart India Private Ltd. and Ors. (C. No. 80 of 2014), had by referring to exclusive sale agreement between Rupa Publications and Flipkart for sale of the book Half Girlfriend, alleged such practices as restrictive and unfair trade practices by e-portals. However, the CCI ruled in favour of e-commerce and stated that such exclusive selling agreements do not violate appreciable adverse effect on competition (AAEC).

 

In the case CCI remarked that “It does not seem that such arrangements create any entry barrier for new entrants. It seems very unlikely that an exclusive arrangement between a manufacturer and an e-portal will create any entry barrier as most of the products which are illustrated in the information to be sold through exclusive e-partners (OPs) face competitive constraints”.

 

For more information on Law of E-Commerce in India please write to us at: info@ssrana.com

 

  |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |  


© Copyright 2010-17, S.S. Rana & Co. All rights reserved