BL has not used its dominance in the relevant market by leveraging its position to enter into another

market

§4(1) of the Act states that no enterprise or group shall abuse its dominant position.1 The DG has found

that BL has not violated Section 4(2)(e) of the Act.2 It is submitted that the findings of DG are correct and
there is no such violation because [1.1] BL does not hold any dominant position in the identified relevant
market, IN ARGUENDO, BL HOLDS A DOMINANT POSITION IN THE MARKET AS FOUND BY THE DG, IT HAS
NOT ABUSED ITS DOMINANT POSITION. [1.2] The DG has correctly identified the relevant market

[1.1] BL does not hold any dominant position in the identified relevant market

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Tribunal that DG has correctly rejected the dominance
of BL in the market.3

Dominance means a position of strength, enjoyed by an enterprise, in the relevant market, which
enables it to,4 operate independently of competitive forces prevailing in that market; or affect its
competitors or consumers or the market in its favor.5

[1.1.1] BL does not operate independently of competitive forces prevailing in the relevant market.

Among the factors determining whether an enterprise enjoys a dominant position or not are the
monopoly or dominant position whether acquired as a result of any statute or by virtue of being a
Government company or a public sector undertaking or otherwise6 and entry barriers including barriers
such as regulatory barriers, financial risk, high capital cost of entry, marketing entry barriers, technical
entry barriers, economies of scale, high cost of substitutable goods or service for consumers.7

{CASELAW} It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Tribunal that BL is the first of its kind to
offer Beaut-Box subscription services in the relevant market. The were no other competitors in the
market to offering service of such kind. Therefore, dominance cannot be established merely because it is
the only player in the market.

Further it is submitted before this court that no trade barriers were imposed by BL upon other

[1.1.2] BL does not affect its competitors or consumers or the market in its favor

1
§4(1), Competition Act, 2002, No. 12, Acts of Parliament, 2002 (India).
2
8.9, PAGE 9, ANNEXURE-1, 9 TH INSTITUTE OF LAW NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019
3
7.23, PAGE 9, ANNEXURE-1, 9 TH INSTITUTE OF LAW NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019
4
Competition Act, 2000, section 19(4), No 12, Acts of Parliament, 2002 (India).
5
135 LENNART RITTER, W. DAVID BRAUN, EUROPEAN COMPETITION LAW: A PRACTITIONER’S GUIDE 18 (3d ed.
2005).
6
§19(4)(g), Competition Act, 2002, No. 12, Acts of Parliament, 2002 (India).
7
§19(4)(h), Competition Act, 2002, No. 12, Acts of Parliament, 2002 (India).