Background of the case:

In the instant matter, M/s Olx B.V. Netherlands and M/s OLX Classified Pakistan (SMC-Private) Limited (herein after collectively as “Complainant”), alleged that M/s Pak Wheels Private Limited (the “Respondent”) has resorted to deceptive marketing practices by using the complainants web page, listings, photographs and description which amounted to violation of section 10 of the Act.

An enquiry was initiated to probe into the matter, and the enquiry concluded that the Respondent had, prima facie, fraudulently used the Complainant’s registered trademark OLX, copyrighted OLX logo, description and photographs from the Complainant’s listings without prior consent or authorization. Similarly, the Respondent was further found engaged in distributing false and misleading information to the consumers related to the properties and place of production. The Respondents conduct was also found to be capable of harming business interests of the Complainants.

Issues:

a) a) Whether the Respondent violated Section 10 of the Act by copying listing/advertisements from the Complainants website and positing it on its own website?

Furthermore, during course of hearing proceedings a Technical Committee was constituted to provide an expert opinion vis-à-vis technical nature of evidence available on the record.

After visiting the Respondents premises and conducting various technical tests at its system, the Technical Committee concluded that “Based on the analysis performed on the acquired data, IS & T forensic team finds that apparently M/s Pak Wheels (Pvt.) Limited is not involved in copying and reproducing advertisements/listings originally posted on the Complainant’s webpage”

The Complainant feeling aggrieved with the aforementioned concluded Report, filed an objection petition, and objected to the Technical Report on various grounds, which was subsequently dismissed by the Commission as the basis of the objection petition were deemed to be unsatisfactory.

After the dismissal of the objection petition, the Complainant requested to withdraw its complaint during the hearing proceedings, however, while the regulations of Competition Law prevalent through the land afford the Complainant with the right to withdraw its complaint, keeping in view the circumstances the Commission decided to settle the matter on merits instead of dismissing the case citing the withdrawal of the complaint

Order:

The Commission concluded that apart from the request of withdrawal of the complaint, the Commission is inclined to adopt the view given in the Technical Report, subsequently it was held that the case of deceptive marketing practice within the meaning of Section 10 of the Act against the Respondent was not made out.