Calcutta HC: Award May Be Set Aside if Tribunal Rewrites Contract or Ignores Key Clauses  ||  Delhi HC Suspends Kuldeep Singh Sengar’s Life Term, Holding Section 5(C) of POCSO Not Made Out  ||  Calcutta High Court: Arbitration Clause in an Expired Lease Cannot be Invoked For a Fresh Lease  ||  Delhi High Court: 120-Day Timeline under Section 132B Of Income Tax Act is Not Mandatory  ||  NCLAT Reaffirms That Borrower's Debt Acknowledgment Also Extends Limitation Period for Guarantors  ||  NCLAT: Oppression & Mismanagement Petition Cannot Be Filed Without Company Membership on Filing Date  ||  Supreme Court Quashes Rajasthan Village Renaming, Says Government Must Follow its Own Policy  ||  NCLAT: NCLT Can Order Forensic Audit on its Own, No Separate Application Required  ||  NCLAT Reiterates That IBC Cannot be Invoked as a Recovery Tool for Contractual Disputes  ||  Delhi HC: DRI or Central Revenues Control Lab Presence in Delhi Alone Does Not Confer Jurisdiction    

K Sera Sera Digital Cinema Pvt. Ltd. v. Digital Cinema Initiatives, LLC and ors. - (Competition Commission of India) (08 Jun 2016)

Hollywood studios not abusing position by mandating theatre equipment

MRTP/ Competition Laws

The Competition Commission dismissed a complaint against film studios Disney, Fox, Sony Pictures Entertainment and more alleging they were abusing their dominant by mandating what equipment their films could be shown on. It held film studios spending effort and expense in developing their films are entitled to reasonably protect their films by demanding use of compliant equipment.

The complainant had claimed that the studios had entered into an anti-competitive agreement, in the form of Digital Cinema Initiatives, to release their movies in India in digital form only through DCI compliant services and projectors. It also claimed its digital cinema technology was at least of comparable quality and was used in 300 theatres across the country. Notably, Bollywood producers had not placed technological conditions on informant or similarly placed companies.

The Commission noted the benefits of DCI specifications devised by the six studios, not least: an absence of proprietary formats, image quality and encryption to prevent piracy.

Informant’s complaint that by mandating use of DCI equipment, studios were effectively setting the price were found to be unsubstantiated and inaccurate. Members noted that the price of a cinema ticket on several other factors such as the movie itself, location of cinema, ambience of surroundings and more.

Informant’s claims of being discriminated against were also found disingenuous, with the CCI observing the company to have been formed only recently, its awareness that studios did not release films on non-DCI equipment and prosperity showing non-Hollywood movies.

In 2013, of 1602 movies released in India, only 53 were movies from Hollywood. Of the total revenue earned by the Indian film industry only 5 per cent was from such films.

CCI had previously dismissed the complaint for failure to raise competition concerns, however the Competition Appellate Tribunal had disagreed and remitted the matter back to the CCI.

Tags : CINEMA   DIGITAL CINEMA INITIATIVE   HOLLYWOOD   EQUIPMENT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved