https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762020 CCI dismissed allegations of abuse of dominant position under Section 4(2)(c) of Competition Act, 2002. The opposing parties were found not to have dominant position in the relevant market. Even if dominance existed, CCI held no abuse occurred as informant failed to prove opposing parties used their information to develop products or prevented market entry. No evidence showed informant had similar product ready for launch or lost first-mover advantage. CCI found no prima facie case established and closed the matter under Section 26(2). en-us Fri, 09 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Nov 2024 07:50:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762020 CCI dismissed allegations of abuse of dominant position under Section 4(2)(c) of Competition Act, 2002. The opposing parties were found not to have dominant position in the relevant market. Even if dominance existed, CCI held no abuse occurred as informant failed to prove opposing parties used their information to develop products or prevented market entry. No evidence showed informant had similar product ready for launch or lost first-mover advantage. CCI found no prima facie case established and closed the matter under Section 26(2). Case-Laws Law of Competition Fri, 09 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762020