Dominance Definition

View the related checklists about Dominance

What to think about before bringing a private competition action—checklist

What to think about before bringing a private competition action—checklist Is there an actionable claim? Note: private competition actions remain largely regulated by national law and procedural and substantive rules across the EU may vary significantly, therefore assessments in individual jurisdictions will need to be made when planning competition litigation. Possible causes of action • Consider if there is an infringement of UK competition law (or EU competition law prior to the end of the Brexit transition period). ◦ Consider whether the loss suffered can be attributed to an agreement or concerted action between undertakings, especially competing undertakings (see further, The prohibition on restrictive agreements). ◦ Consider whether the loss might have been caused by an entity that is arguably dominant typically with a large share of a relevant market, and could be said to have abused its dominance contrary to Chapter II of the Competition Act 1998 (and/or Article 102 TFEU if prior to the end of the Brexit transition period) (see further, The prohibition on abuse of dominance)....

Key IP considerations in R&D agreements—checklist

Key IP considerations in R&D agreements—checklist Using this Checklist This Checklist focuses on the IP aspects of R&D agreements and identifies the key terms typically included in an R&D agreement. This document can be used as a checklist of issues to consider when drafting, reviewing or negotiating such agreements. Key competition law considerations are also considered. However, an individual assessment will need to be conducted as to whether an agreement’s IP provisions are compatible with competition law, particularly the prohibitions against anti-competitive agreements under Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998 (CA 1998). On 1 June 2023, the European Commission adopted the EU Research & Developments Block Exemption, Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/1066 (EU R&D BER) and the accompanying Horizontal Guidelines. The EU R&D BER entered into force on 1 July 2023 and will expire on 30 June 2035. On 5 December 2022, the UK government laid before Parliament the Competition Act 1998 (Research and Development...

View the related practice notes about Dominance

Case C- 617/17 Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń na Życie S.A. w Warszawie v Prezes Urzędu Ochrony v Prezes Urzędu Ochrony (double jeopardy) [Archived]

Case C- 617/17 Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń na Życie S.A. w Warszawie v Prezes Urzędu Ochrony v Prezes Urzędu Ochrony (double jeopardy) [Archived] CASE HUB—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 3 April 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary, and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Case C- 617/17 Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń na Życie-a national reference from Poland seeking clarification on the principle of double jeopardy (ne bis in idem) and how this is applied in parallel competition investigations. Latest developments On 3 April 2019, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in Case C- 617/17 Powszechny Zaklad Ubezpieczeń na Zycie S.A., a national reference from Poland seeking clarification on the principle of ne bis in idem (double jeopardy) and how it is applied in circumstances where a national competition authority (NCA) has imposed a fine on an undertaking for anti-competitive conduct based on the parallel application of national and EU competition law. In this ruling,...

Cases C- 553/12 P Commission v DEI and C- 554/12 P Commission v DEI (Greek lignite) [Archived]

Cases C- 553/12 P Commission v DEI and C- 554/12 P Commission v DEI (Greek lignite) [Archived] CASE HUB (referred back to the General Court in Cases T- 169/08 RENV and T- 421/09 RENV–see Cases T-169/08 RENV DEI v Commission and T-421/09 RENV DEI v Commission (Greek lignite) [Archived]) ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 17 July 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Appeals brought by the European Commission against (1) the judgment of the General Court annulling the Commission decision of 5 March 2008 ('contested decision') which declared incompatible with Article 86(1) EC (read in conjunction with Article 82 EC) the retention by the Greek state of preferential rights in favour of the public undertaking Dimosia Epikhirisi Ilektrismou AE for the exploration and exploitation of lignite deposits, and (2) against a subsequent judgment of the General Court which (as a result of its annulment of...

View the related precedents about Dominance

Competition law compliance—warning signs for staff

Competition law compliance—warning signs for staff Behaviour red flags are situations which should cause you to ask questions. Although difficult to detect, there are many circumstances that signal the existence of anti-competitive behaviour. This awareness tool features possible competition law warning signs, flags, characteristics or behaviours to watch out for. Even just one of these red flags may be a sign of anti-competitive behaviour. 1 Cartel behaviour Any attempt to fix prices. Any attempt to engage in bid-rigging. Any attempt to limit production. Any attempt to share customers or markets. Any attempt to standardise products (while product standardisation can be pro-competitive, it can in some instances also be classified as anti-competitive if, for example, the standards are only available to certain competitors). Attendance of trade association meetings (while attending meetings of trade or industry associations can be entirely legal and serve pro-competitive purposes, they can also provide opportunities for competitors to exchange competitively-sensitive information or

Competition law compliance—post-training assessment answers

Competition law compliance—post-training assessment answers Question Correct answer 1. Competition law protects business and consumers from anti-competitive behaviour, and safeguards effective competition True 2. What are the consequences of breaching competition law? Heavy fines, prison sentences, director disqualifications, and reputational damage. 3. What are the three main contexts in which competition law may become an issue for commercial organisations? Cartels, abuse of dominant position and other anti-competitive agreements 4. Would an organisation that has substantial market power over a period of time be classified as being in a dominant

View the related q&as about Dominance

In the context of an English law agreement what is a ‘preferred supplier’? Might there be any regulatory issues to consider in connection with the appointment of a ‘preferred supplier’?

In the context of an English law agreement what is a ‘preferred supplier’? Might there be any regulatory issues to consider in connection with the appointment of a ‘preferred supplier’? What is the meaning of ‘preferred supplier’? The term ‘preferred supplier’ is often used in business, however it has no definitive or clear meaning in English law. Differing views of the meaning of the term are possible. For example the phrase might be intended to mean that the supplier would fall into one or more of the following (often mutually conflicting) categories or have some other meaning: • it may not be offered any work but is on an ‘approved’ list and so does not have to repeat certain retendering exercises • if offered work, it will be offered terms of trade that are no less favourable than those offered to any other supplier • it will always be offered certain work unless a competing supplier offers better terms • it will be offered a minimum...

What did the government say in its full response to the Online Harms consultation?

What did the government say in its full response to the Online Harms consultation? Background to the response The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) published the Online Harms White Paper in April 2019. It proposed a statutory duty of care to deal with online harms, ranging from illegal activity and content to behaviours which are harmful but not necessarily illegal. Consultation on the White Paper closed on 1 July 2019. In February 2020, the DCMS published its initial response to the consultation and in December 2020 it published the full response, providing detail of the Online Harms regime. In keeping with the government’s ambition, as set out in the Online Harms White Paper, to make the UK the safest place in the world to go online, the response set out a framework of legislation establishing a duty of care on companies to improve the safety of their users online. This duty is to be overseen and enforced by Ofcom. The regulatory framework will...

View the related News about Dominance

EU Law weekly highlights—24 July 2025

This week's edition of EU Law weekly highlights includes analyses on the decision of the EU court for privacy activist Lisa Ballmann to access files in the Meta case, the EU trade mark dispute on Iceland foods which lost over link to nation's name, the Commission’s guidelines on the EU AI Act’s rules for general-purpose AI models, the final version of the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice, the country's first national collective database to be licensed for training AI formed by a group of Dutch media outlets, the Commission’s guidelines for the protection of minors online and a Market Insights Trend Report’s analysis on the sustainability disclosures and climate transition plans. In addition this week, the Commission proposed a new Multiannual Financial Framework, published the July 2025 infringement package, initiated procedures to adopt new adequacy decisions for EU-UK personal data transfers, initiated a call for evidence seeking input on a future omnibus package to simplify environmental legislation, published an Explanatory Notice and Template to guide providers of General Purpose AI...

Competition weekly highlights—24 July 2025

This week's edition of Competition weekly highlights includes, from a UK perspective: (1) a series of reforms to the NSI Act 2021, namely: (i) a consultation on proposed reforms to the Act’s mandatory notification regime, (ii) the Government’s intention to remove NSI notification requirements for internal reorganisations and insolvency appointments, and (iii) publication of the 2024–25 Annual Report, (2) the CMA’s decision that Aramark/Entier merger meets the test for reference to a phase 2, and (3) publication of the IWC’s final report on its review of the regulatory framework for the water sector in England and Wales, in which it recommends the abolition of Ofwat. This week's highlights also includes, from an EU perspective: the Commission’s decisions to: (1) issue an SO for potential breaches of Articles 4, 7 and 8 EUMR in the Vivendi/Lagardère merger, (2) the Commission’s decision to refer UMG/Downtown to phase II, (3) launch a consultation on draft FSR guidelines, and (4) accept commitments offered by Corning in its ‘Gorilla Glass’ abuse investigation.