https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258424 The Commission concluded that the conduct of the Adidas AG Group did not contravene Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. Despite being in a dominant position within the defined relevant market of premium sports goods in Noida, the Commission found no evidence of abusive practices. The allegations regarding unfair franchise agreements were deemed unsubstantiated, as the agreements predated the group's dominance and lacked evidence of discriminatory conduct. Consequently, the case was closed under Section 26(2) of the Act, indicating no further action was warranted. en-us Tue, 13 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Apr 2015 06:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258424 The Commission concluded that the conduct of the Adidas AG Group did not contravene Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. Despite being in a dominant position within the defined relevant market of premium sports goods in Noida, the Commission found no evidence of abusive practices. The allegations regarding unfair franchise agreements were deemed unsubstantiated, as the agreements predated the group's dominance and lacked evidence of discriminatory conduct. Consequently, the case was closed under Section 26(2) of the Act, indicating no further action was warranted. Case-Laws Law of Competition Tue, 13 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258424