Non-Marketing of Informant’s Supplement Product Due to Non-Cooperation of OPs Didn’t Raise Any Competition Issue; Plea Rejected | CCI

Case Details: Somnath Banerjee v. Apex Lab - [2024] 162 taxmann.com 132 (CCI)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Ms Ravneet Kaur, Chairperson, Anil Agrawal, Ms Sweta Kakkad & Deepak Anurag, Member

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the informant was a pharmacist and holder of Patent No 395566 granted on 27.04.2022 by Patent Office, Govt. of India. As per Patent Certificate, invention i.e. ‘An Oral Rehydration Powder Composition Comprising Papain’ was stated to be a dietary supplement/ modified ORS, which improves digestion, reduces pain and inflammation etc.

The Informant was primarily aggrieved by the non-marketing of its patented dietary supplement (sold under the brand name Protestin) due to the alleged non-cooperation of private hospitals, Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives, online pharmacies, MNCs, distributors, doctors, exporters, Indian Drug Manufacturers’ Association, medicines shops, etc. (OPs).

Further, the Informant stated that the alleged conduct of OPs was in contravention of Section 3(4) and Section 3(1) of the Competition Act, 2002.

CCI Held

The Competition Commission of India noted that commercial considerations of market players drove the decision of purchase or sale of a product and quantity thereof. Further, there was no agreement or arrangement as envisaged under provisions of Section 3(4), and thus, there was no apparent anti-competitive conduct.

The Competition Commission of India held that there was no contravention of provisions of section 3(4), read with section 3(1), and thus, the matter was to be closed under section 26 of the Competition Act, 2002.