The basic premise of these guidelines is that the Commission for the Supervision of Business Competition (Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha / KPPU) has the responsibility of ensuring that monopolistic and unfair business practices are eliminated where they exist and prevent them from occurring. These guidelines have been issued as KPPU Regulation No. 2 of 2009 and deal with the intellectual property rights and Article 50(b) of Law No. 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic and Unfair Business Practices (Anti-Monopoly Law).
The exclusive rights holder that is in the process of making, or intends to make, an intellectual property rights agreement such as a license, patent, trademark, or copyright, among others, needs to pay heed to the provisions of these guidelines, as the guidelines set out the exceptions to the rule with respect to franchising matters.
The KPPU recognizes that the existence of an exclusive right does not always signify the creation of a monopoly or unfair business practices, exclusive right holders must ensure that neither a monopoly nor unfair business practices are allowed to develop.
The guidelines enumerate in extensive detail the KPPU’s interpretation of Article 50(b) and how this article is to work in practice. The guidelines set out six basic clauses that will always require further analysis to ensure that monopolies and unfair business practices are not developing. These six clauses that are identified in the guidelines are:
1.
Pooling and Cross Licensing;
2.
Tying Arrangements;
3.
Restrictions on raw materials;
4.
Restrictions on production and sales;
5.
Restrictions on sale and re-sale price; and
6.
Grant Back.
Each of these is then defined and enumerated in the succeeding pages of the guidelines.
Chapter V of the guidelines provides graphic examples of the implementation of Article 50(b), exclusive dealing, and case examples for a grant back scenario; restrictions of production and sales; and, a refusal to license. The case examples are indicative of how the KPPU is going to interpret similar case scenarios with respect to the implementation of Article 50(b).
The guidelines have been in force since 13 May 2009.
The basic premise of these guidelines is that the Commission for the Supervision of Business Competition (Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha / KPPU) has the responsibility of ensuring that monopolistic and unfair business practices are eliminated where they exist and prevent them from occurring. These guidelines have been issued as KPPU Regulation No. 2 of 2009 and deal with the intellectual property rights and Article 50(b) of Law No. 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic and Unfair Business Practices (Anti-Monopoly Law).
The exclusive rights holder that is in the process of making, or intends to make, an intellectual property rights agreement such as a license, patent, trademark, or copyright, among others, needs to pay heed to the provisions of these guidelines, as the guidelines set out the exceptions to the rule with respect to franchising matters.
The KPPU recognizes that the existence of an exclusive right does not always signify the creation of a monopoly or unfair business practices, exclusive right holders must ensure that neither a monopoly nor unfair business practices are allowed to develop.
The guidelines enumerate in extensive detail the KPPU’s interpretation of Article 50(b) and how this article is to work in practice. The guidelines set out six basic clauses that will always require further analysis to ensure that monopolies and unfair business practices are not developing. These six clauses that are identified in the guidelines are:
1.
Pooling and Cross Licensing;
2.
Tying Arrangements;
3.
Restrictions on raw materials;
4.
Restrictions on production and sales;
5.
Restrictions on sale and re-sale price; and
6.
Grant Back.
Each of these is then defined and enumerated in the succeeding pages of the guidelines.
Chapter V of the guidelines provides graphic examples of the implementation of Article 50(b), exclusive dealing, and case examples for a grant back scenario; restrictions of production and sales; and, a refusal to license. The case examples are indicative of how the KPPU is going to interpret similar case scenarios with respect to the implementation of Article 50(b).
The guidelines have been in force since 13 May 2009.
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
Professional Solutions
University Solutions
Pro
My Workspace
Pro AI
Terfavorit
Allex QnA
Pro Compliance
