12.6 Even though the Commission has concluded that the OP is not dominant in the relevant market, yet the Commission proceeds to examine the allegations of the Informant pertaining to abusive conduct by the OP. The Informant has alleged that the OP has instituted false litigation against the Informant. The Commission takes cognizance of the contentions of the OP that it is facing the menace of counterfeit products, especially on account of online retailers. After conducting its internal verification, the OP initiated legal action against such sellers, including the Informant, to restrain them from manufacturing and/or selling counterfeit products. The Commission notes that before proceeding against the Informant, the OP has brought similar actions against other entities also namely, Vardhman Times, Dhaka Associates and Deal Kart Private Limited, wherein, ex-parte ad-interim injunction orders had been obtained. Further, the OP initiated legal proceedings against an entity namely, Arizona and an individual namely, Md. Naseem as well, in February, 2017 and November, 2017, respectively, i.e. around/after the same time as against the Informant, for alleged counterfeiting. As a result of these, hundreds and thousands of counterfeit items were seized. This brings forth the fact that counterfeit actions have been initiated by the OP not only against the Informant but also against other persons suspected to be engaged in manufacture and sale of counterfeit products. The Commission observes that the holder of an Intellectual Property has the right to protect it, and therefore, reasonable actions and restrictions imposed in this regard cannot be found at fault under the competition law. Thus, the Commission does not find substance in the allegation of the Informant that the OP has initiated sham litigation against the Informant on account of not abiding by RPM and/or discount policy of the OP.
