https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762018 A competition complaint alleging exclusive supply obligation, forced co-branding, refusal to deal and resale price maintenance was found unsupported at the prima facie stage. The Commission noted that the allegations rested largely on an unsigned, undated draft agreement and oral assertions, while the arrangement appeared to have a commercial basis linked to technical and marketing assistance for specialised products. It held that co-branding alone did not show an anti-competitive restraint, and no material established downstream price control or refusal to supply. Confidentiality was granted for the informant's identity and specified material for a limited period, and the information was closed. en-us Mon, 22 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Nov 2024 07:50:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762018 A competition complaint alleging exclusive supply obligation, forced co-branding, refusal to deal and resale price maintenance was found unsupported at the prima facie stage. The Commission noted that the allegations rested largely on an unsigned, undated draft agreement and oral assertions, while the arrangement appeared to have a commercial basis linked to technical and marketing assistance for specialised products. It held that co-branding alone did not show an anti-competitive restraint, and no material established downstream price control or refusal to supply. Confidentiality was granted for the informant's identity and specified material for a limited period, and the information was closed. Case-Laws Law of Competition Mon, 22 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762018