[1]Indian Competition Act 2002,s.3(5)

[2]Alyssa A.Lutz and Lauren J.Stiroh, “The Relevant Market in IP and Antitrust Litigation”(2003) 9 (4) IP Litigator,

[3]Alyssa A.Lutz and Lauren J.Stiroh, “The Relevant Market in IP and Antitrust Litigation”(2003) 9 (4) IP Litigator,

[4] Goenka Institute of Education and Research v Anjani Kumar Goenka and Anr.,2009 (39) PTC 720 (Del.)

[5] Goenka Institute of Education and Research v Anjani Kumar Goenka and Anr.,2009 (39) PTC 720 (Del.):In this case "Goenka" was a prominent component of the trademarks of both the applicant and the respondent; the rival marks were "Goenka Public School" and "G.D. Goenka Public School."One institution was in Delhi and the other was in Rajasthan.

[6] Indian Competition Act 2002,s.3(5)

[7] Alyssa A.Lutz and Lauren J.Stiroh, “The Relevant Market in IP and Antitrust Litigation”(2003) 9 (4) IP Litigator,

[8]Indian Competition Act 2002,s.2(r): It states that “relevant market” means the market which may be determined by the commission with reference to the relevant product market or the relevant geographic market or with reference to both the markets”

[9]Nguyen, Thanh, Defining Relevant Market Under the European Union Competition Law - Regulations and Practice - Experience for Vietnam (2012). <https://ssrn.com/abstract=2069995 >Accessed on 23/07/2023

[10]Report Of Competition Law Review Committee,Ministry of Corporate Affairs Government of India,2019 July,p.50,available at https://ies.gov.in/pdfs/Report-Competition-CLRC.pdf ,Accessed 30 July 2023

[11] Report Of Competition Law Review Committee,Ministry of Corporate Affairs Government of India,2019 July,p.50,available at https://ies.gov.in/pdfs/Report-Competition-CLRC.pdf ,Accessed 30 July 2023

[12] Indian Competition Act,s.19(5):It states that “) For determining whether a market constitutes a “relevant market” for the purposes of this Act, the Commission shall have due regard to the “relevant geographic market’’ and “relevant product market”

[13] Indian Competition Act 2002,s.2(t)

[14]Shubhalakshmi Bhattacharya & Ganesh BhaskarLata, “A comparative perspective of Competition Law cases in the ride-sharing industry: reflections from Singapore, EU, and India” (2022) 36(3) International Review of Law , Computers & Technology <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13600869.2022.2030026> Accessed 30 July 2023

[15]Shubhalakshmi Bhattacharya & Ganesh BhaskarLata, “A comparative perspective of Competition Law cases in the ride-sharing industry: reflections from Singapore, EU, and India” (2022) 36(3) International Review of Law , Computers & Technology <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13600869.2022.2030026> Accessed 30 July 2023

[16]Indian Competition Act 2002,s.19 (7) provides that "The Commission shall, while determining the relevant product market, have due regard to all or any of the following factors, namely:- (a) physical characteristics or end-use of goods; (b) price of goods or service (c) consumer preferences; (d) exclusion of in-house production; (e) existence of specialized producers; (f) classification of industrial products."

[17]Goenka Institute of Education and Research v Anjani Kumar Goenka and Anr.,2009 (39) PTC 720 (Del.)

[18]Goenka Institute of Education and Research v Anjani Kumar Goenka and Anr.,2009 (39) PTC 720 (Del.): In this case "Goenka" was a prominent component of the trademarks of both the applicant and the respondent; the rival marks were "Goenka Public School" and "G.D. Goenka Public School."One institution was in Delhi and the other was in Rajasthan.

[19] Monsanto Holdings Private Limited & Ors v. CCI & Ors,LPA 247/2016

[20] Indian Competition Act 2002,s.2(t)

[21]Belaire Owners' Association v.Dlf Limited, Huda & Ors,2011 CompLR 0239

[22]Belaire Owners' Association v.Dlf Limited, Huda & Ors,2011 CompLR 0239:In this case,the informants booked the units and paid a significant amount in advance when DLF announced the opening of Group Housing Complexes, known as The Belaire, in Gurgaon. They hardly had any choice but to follow DLF's instructions.The original plan was unilaterally changed by the DLF without notifying the informants.The DLF added 53 percent more flats.The Informants filed a complaint under the Act against DLF, the Haryana Urban Development Authority, and the Department of Town and Country Planning, State of Haryana, citing the construction's unusual delay and significant compression of the common areas and facilities originally designated for each flat. In the lawsuit, the informant claimed that DLF had imposed severe restrictions by abusing its dominating position.

[23] Small but Significant, non-transitory Increase in Price test (popularly known as the “SSNIP test”) which examines whether a sustained increase of approximately 5% in the price of a product would cause consumers to shift their demand to a substitute for that product.The logic behind the SSNIP test is that if the small but significant, non transitory increase in price is not profitable for the hypothetical monopolist, then there exists at least one substitute to the product whose prices were raised as part of the exercise.

[24] Belaire Owners' Association v.Dlf Limited, Huda & Ors,2011 CompLR 0239

[25] Belaire Owners' Association v.Dlf Limited, Huda & Ors,2011 CompLR 0239

[26]The Court states that "Non-residential" properties may include a wide array of properties such as office space, retail shops, commercial space, hotels, storage space, industrial space, infrastructure, sports or amusement spaces etc.Residential properties are buildings where people live, such as stand-alone houses, builder-floors, apartments, row-houses, condominiums or studio-apartments.

[27] Ashish Ahuja v. Snapdeal and others,Case No. 17 of 2014

[28] Mohit Manglani v Flipkart,Case No 80 of 2014

[29] Mohit Manglani v Flipkart,Case No 80 of 2014

[30] Matrimony.Com Limited v. Google LLC & Others,Case Nos. 07 and 30 of 2012

[31] The Consumer Unity and Trust Society ("CUTS") and Matrimony.com had each filed two separate complaints with the CCI. In both of these complaints, Google was accused of abusing its dominant position in the "online search" and "online search advertising" markets by conducting promotional advertisements, biasing search results in favor of its own shopping and travel websites, and creating a search bias. Both concerns were resolved by the CCI with a single order.

[32] Biocon Limited & Ors. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ag & Ors.,Case No. 68 of 2016

[33] Rouche created an antibody called trastuzumab, which was  commercialized in India as the medication Herceptin. ,used to attack cancer cells. The company removed Herceptin off the Indian market and replaced it with a less expensive drug called Trastuzumab in an effort to stop rivals from creating biosimilar versions of the drug and to circumvent the need for a compulsory license. Meanwhile, the informants worked  to create a less expensive biosimilar version of it. Following the biosimilar version's release, the sources said that the Roche Group (opposite parties) began pursuing pointless legal battles against other companies in an effort to keep them from entering the "Trastuzumab" market.Furthermore, it was argued that the opposing parties had frivolous conversations with different authorities with the goal of obstructing the entry of its rivals.Furthermore, it was argued that the opposing parties had frivolous conversations with different authorities with the goal of obstructing the entry of its rivals and informant filed a complaint alleging abuse of dominance and anti competitive practises.

[34]Prints India vs Springer India Private Limited,Case No:16 of 2010

[35]Prints India vs Springer India Private Limited,Case No:16 of 2010:Springer India is a division of the global publishing company Springer Science, and India Prints distributes Indian publications.India Prints was subject to multiple additional contractual requirements from Springer India. These requirements included lowering the journal discounts and requiring India Prints to give Springer India the end-user information. Should the information not be submitted, Springer India reserves the right to stop supplying India Prints with more publications. Prints India agreed to these conditions.But it stopped the practise when it began to notice a decline of clientele, for which it gave Springer India the information. Following that, Springer India made the decision to stop providing India Prints with periodicals.

[36]PepsiCo. Inc. And Ors. vs Hindustan Coca Cola Ltd. And Anr.,2003 (27) PTC 305 Del

[37]In this case, Pepsi sued Coca-Cola for improperly exploiting its trademark and defaming its goods in a commercial. When the actor in this commercial asks various people about their preferred beverage, they all name one that has packaging that is strikingly similar to Pepsi. The actor continues, saying they prefer this version since it's overly cutesy and aimed at younger audiences.After being forced to sample both beverages, the children eventually confess that the one they preferred was actually Coca-Cola. The other bottle's packaging was remarkably similar to Pepsi's, and the wording "Pappi" was inscribed in a similar style on the bottle cap.

[38]PepsiCo. Inc. And Ors. vs Hindustan Coca Cola Ltd. And Anr.,2003 (27) PTC 305 Del

[39]M/S Matrimony.Com Limited vs Kalyan Jewellers India Limited,(MAD) 2020-3-226:The appellant holds trademark registrations for a number of additional names that have been developed by combining the language, location, or religion with the term "marriage," such as "Tamil Matrimony," "Kerala Matrimony," and so on. The appellant is also the registered owner of the mark "Bharat Matrimony." A few of the defendants submitted bids for the "AdWords," which are identical to the appellant's trademarks save for the space between the words.The appellant used "infringement" and "passing off" as grounds for filing a lawsuit seeking a permanent injunction.

[40]M/S Matrimony.Com Limited vs Kalyan Jewellers India Limited,(MAD) 2020-3-226:

[41] M/s Nuziveedu Seeds Limited & Others. Vs. Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Limited (MMBL) & Others,Case No. 107/ 2015

[42] M/s Nuziveedu Seeds Limited & Others. Vs. Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Limited (MMBL) & Others,Case no 50/2013

[43]Matrimony.Com Limited v. Google LLC & Others,Case Nos. 07 and 30 of 2012