https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458901 Preferential screen allocation in film exhibition was found not to disclose abuse of dominance or an anti-competitive agreement, because exhibitors retain commercial autonomy unless material evidence shows competition harm. The Commission accepted that allocation decisions may turn on revenue potential, audience response, marketing, historical performance, cast, language, and box-office expectations, and found no arrangement or discriminatory conduct on the record. Vertical integration in film production, distribution and exhibition was also held not to be prohibited per se, and non-disclosure of commercial terms did not itself create a competition concern. In the absence of a prima facie contravention, the matter was closed at the threshold and interim relief did not survive. en-us Wed, 03 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Nov 2024 20:27:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458901 Preferential screen allocation in film exhibition was found not to disclose abuse of dominance or an anti-competitive agreement, because exhibitors retain commercial autonomy unless material evidence shows competition harm. The Commission accepted that allocation decisions may turn on revenue potential, audience response, marketing, historical performance, cast, language, and box-office expectations, and found no arrangement or discriminatory conduct on the record. Vertical integration in film production, distribution and exhibition was also held not to be prohibited per se, and non-disclosure of commercial terms did not itself create a competition concern. In the absence of a prima facie contravention, the matter was closed at the threshold and interim relief did not survive. Case-Laws Law of Competition Wed, 03 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458901