Even in cases where a category exemption does not apply, a vertical agreement may continue to benefit from an individual exemption. The parties are authorized to conduct a self-assessment to determine whether the restrictive vertical competition agreement meets the requirements for the individual exemption. Like the EU competition regime, the conditions for individual exemption are: (i) the agreement must contribute to improving the production or distribution of products or to promoting technical or economic progress; (ii) it must give consumers an appropriate share of the resulting benefit; (iii) it should not impose restrictions on the companies concerned that are not necessary to achieve these objectives; and (iv) it should not allow the parties to eliminate competition on a substantial portion of the products concerned. This is not an alternative test and all individual exemption requirements must be met. Much of the ICC`s decisions to date relate to cartels and abuses of dominance. In all ICC infringement proceedings, we assume that less than 5% of cases involve vertical restrictions. Horizontal agreements are agreements between two or more parties operating at the same level of the production, supply and distribution chain, . B between two suppliers or two retailers. Joint sales agreements, joint sales agreements, specialisation agreements, and R and D concluded between competing companies are examples of this. The Competition Act does not expressly require the ICC to take into account the supplier`s market share in assessing vertical restrictions. However, the ICC generally finds only vertical restrictions that raise concerns when imposed by companies with some market power. On several occasions, the ICC rejected allegations of vertical restrictions for which suppliers` market shares were insignificant.
Finally, the ICC rejected allegations of maintaining the resale price against Vivo mobile device manufacturers in India because of weak (and declining) market share, weak sales and high competition in the Indian smartphone market [Tamil Nadu Consumer Consumer Products Distributors Association v Fangs Vivo Technology Limited (Case No. 15 of 2018) ( Similarly, the ICC considered the presence of other market players due to the fact that multi-brand competition in the fmCG sector was not affected (Ghanshyam Dass Vij v Bajaj Corp Ltd – Ors (Case 68 of 2013) (Ghanshyam Dass Vij)). For example, a consumer electronics manufacturer could have a vertical agreement with a retailer that would sell and promote the retailer`s products, possibly in exchange for lower prices. Such agreements could lead to a division of markets and/or the creation and maintenance of territorial restrictions. Similar vertical restrictions may be covered by the section 4 prohibition, unless they fall under a class exemption or individual exemption. Under what circumstances do the vertical restriction rules apply to agreements between a parent company and a related company (or between affiliates of the same parent company)? Any vertical restraint at the origin or origin of an AAEC in India is prohibited. The ICC may assume responsibility for companies outside India as long as the vertical restrictions imposed by these companies influence the conditions of competition in India. The ICC often investigates companies outside India. For example, in 2011, the ICC rejected allegations of vertical restrictions allegedly imposed by Intel Corporation (a Delaware company) and its Indian subsidiary by setting targets and incentives, preventing distributors from manipulating their competitors` products and setting the resale price of their distributors.