Aishwarya Vatsa, Assistant Professor, School of Law, University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun
ABSTRACT
The two domains of intellectual property law and competition law share conflicting ideas, as they are diametrically opposite to each other. The justifications provided for intellectual property rights all suggest a negative right, as propounded by John Locke in the avoidance of labour theory or by Hegel in his personality theory , thereby creating a conflict with antitrust laws.
Such exclusive rights give the right holder the freedom to maneuver the monopoly and market in their favour and whims, resulting in an abuse of their dominant position in the economy. Copyright is a bundle of rights, which contains economic, moral and neighbouring rights. It includes right to communicate, adaptation, reproduction etc. Each of these rights can be assigned for the purpose of copyright licensing, and would authorize the licensee to use the copyrighted work according to the nature of the contract. But a refusal to license such rights, in spite of favourable terms in the contract result in the abuse of the dominant position held by the owner of a copyrighted work. It would hinder the growth of the copyrighted work itself and of the economy in general, thus, defeating the very purpose of granting intellectual property rights. A remedy to the solution is the concept of compulsory licensing, which is being widely accepted in statutes and cases around the globe.
The paper would aim to discuss the above mentioned concepts and the issues of licensing of copyright and its refusal. Also, the implications of it as an abuse of dominant position, the concept of compulsory licensing and the future possibilities in the area, the above discussion would be in the light of the regulations and cases in India and worldwide.`
Keywords: Copyright Licensing, Dominant Position, Refusal to License, Compulsory Licensing.
