CCI dismisses complaint against Timex Group India


PTI | Updated: 17-08-2018 20:06 IST | Created: 17-08-2018 19:47 IST
  • Country:
  • India

Fair trade regulator CCI has dismissed a complaint alleging unfair business practices against Timex Group India with regard to the sale of wrist watches.

The regulator disposed of the matter as it did not find any prima facie case of contravention of the Competition Act against Timex (Opposite Party).

"... the Commission finds that no prima facie case of contravention of the provisions of either Section 3 or Section 4 of the Act is made out against the OP (Opposite Party) in the instant matter," the CCI said in an order dated August 14.

Section 3 and 4 pertain to anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominant market position, respectively.

The CCI order has come on a complaint filed by Bengaluru-based Counfreedise, a partnership firm engaged in the business of purchasing lifestyle products, including wrist watches, either directly from the concerned company or through their authorized distributors and thereafter, selling them online.

It was alleged that Timex stopped doing business with the complainant on account of non-compliance of resale price maintenance (RPM) diktat and the former discriminated against the latter vis-a-vis other online retailers like Cloudtail and XL Retail.

By way of RPM practices, which is quite common in consumer goods and some other sectors, a manufacturer and distributor decide that the former's product would not be sold at a price below a certain threshold level. This is the latest in a series of cases being probed by CCI with regard to the fast-growing online retail space.

For the case, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) considered the "market for manufacture and sale of wrist watches in the organized watch industry in India" as the relevant one.

In its order, the regulator observed that apart from Timex, there are several other major players present in the relevant market.

Noting that Timex does not appear to be a dominant player in the relevant market, the regulator said in the absence of dominance, no case of contravention of Section 4 is made out.

The regulator also said that the complainant has failed to place on record any evidence to establish that Timex enforced RPM across the distribution channel so as to be able to cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition in the relevant market.

The Commission "does not find any merit" in the allegations of the complainant that Timex has contravened the provisions of Section 3, the CCI said.

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Give Feedback