The Competition Commission recently decided on a joint pre-merger application by Uber Technologies, Inc and Careem Inc and concluded that – based on its assessment of the relevant market – the proposed merger was likely to substantially weaken competition through the creation or strengthening of a dominant position in the relevant market. Thus, the commission initiated a Phase II review.
The Competition Commission recently initiated proceedings against 18 electric cable manufacturers which had engaged in deceptive marketing practices under the Competition Act by failing to disclose to consumers that there were cash/cash coupons in the packaging of electric wire cable bundles. The commission's enquiry concluded that on account of this omission, purchasers of the product had been unaware of the coupons and this benefit had instead transferred to various electricians.
The Competition Commission recently examined whether Wateen Telecom Limited had resorted to a tie-in arrangement for analogue TV services provided to a housing scheme in Lahore, restricting consumer choice and abusing its dominant position in violation of the Competition Act. The commission found that the original enquiry report had erroneously defined the relevant market. Due to a lack of sufficient data and evidence, the show cause notice issued to Wateen was set aside.
The Competition Commission recently conducted an inquiry into alleged discriminatory practices that the Defence Officers Housing Authority Islamabad-Rawalpindi (DHA) had undertaken against Nayatel (Private) Limited in respect of the provision of cable internet and telephony services. The inquiry committee found that the DHA held a dominant position in the relevant market and had abused this position by effectively and constrictively refusing to deal with Nayatel.
The Competition Commission recently conducted an enquiry following a complaint filed by Pakistan Services Limited against a number of other hotel operators for fraudulently using the complainant's registered trademark for the branding of their hotels. The commission found that the respondents had resorted to deceptive marketing practices by adopting marks that were identical or deceptively similar to the complainant's registered marks.