annual-report-FY2020

222 COMPANY OVERVIEW BOARD’S REPORT MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS CORPORATE GOVERNANCE BUSINESS RESPONSIBILITY REPORT STANDALONE ACCOUNTS CONSOLIDATED ACCOUNTS 2. Does the company display product information on the product label, over and above what is mandated as per local laws? Yes/No/N.A. /Remarks (additional information) Yes. In addition to mandatory requirements, Company also provides service and safety labels as deemed appropriate. e.g.: Product fuel economy data displayed for each variant at selling points (Dealership). 3. Is there any case filed by any stakeholder against the company regarding unfair trade practices, irresponsible advertising and/or anti-competitive behaviour during the last five years and pending as on end of financial year. If so, provide details thereof, in about 50 words or so. Yes. The Company has been impleaded in the below listed proceedings that allege unfair competition/ trade practices. The Company believes that the allegations are untrue and without merit and is vigorously defending itself in these proceedings. Description of the matters pending under the Competition Act, 2002: Case No. 3/2011: Based on the information given by the Informant ‘Shamsher Kataria’ against 3 car manufacturers about non-availability of spare parts in the open market, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) commenced investigation of 17 car manufacturers. On August 25, 2014 CCI passed an order (“Order”) against fourteen companies including Mahindra & Mahindra (M&M) Limited. By this Order, the CCI imposed a penalty of Rs. 292.25 crores amounting to 2% of the average annual turnover for the years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. M&M vide a Writ Petition W.P.(C) 6610/2014 (“W.P”) filed before the Delhi High Court challenged the constitutional validity of certain sections of the Competition Act, 2002 based on which the order and penalty was decided by the CCI. On 10 th  April, 2019, the Delhi High Court pronounced its order (HC order) and held certain sections of the Competition Act as unconstitutional. The HC order requires that in views of its directions, new guidelines be framed by CCI, in regard to the manner in which the CCI conduct its proceedings. M&M challenged the aforesaid Order of Delhi HC by filing a SLP before the Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to issue notice to Respondents and further granted stay on Impugned CCI Order till the next date of hearing to be held in August 2019. The matter is not yet listed for hearing in the Supreme Court. Matters pending before the ITC, USA In August of 2018, a complaint was filed by Fiat Chrysler Automobile US, LLC (“Fiat”) with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) against Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (“M&M”) and Mahindra Automotive North America (“MANA”) alleging that certain design features of the Mahindra ROXOR infringe the intellectual property rights of Fiat’s Jeep design. Fiat has sought an order for permanently restraining M&M from exporting to the United States, and MANA from importing into US, any part or component which infringes Fiat’s intellectual property rights. If they succeed in getting permanent injunction, sale of certain parts or components by M&M to MANA will be affected. M&M continues to assert that the complaint is without merit. In response, M&M/MANA brought action in Federal District Court in Michigan on the issue of the applicability and enforcement of M&M’s 2009 agreement with Fiat and to assert a claim for compensation arising out of the harm caused by Fiat using the ITC case to injure the ROXOR business, M&M and MANA by creating negative publicity, damaging our reputation and our stature in the marketplace. After the hearing the court indicated that both the Federal District Court action and the ITC investigation would continue. The parties agreed to delay trial at the Federal District Court until the final outcome at the ITC. Trial at the ITC was held in August, 2019. The administrative law judge overseeing the case issued an initial determination and recommendation wherein it was suggested that although the Mahindra ROXOR did not infringe on any of FCA’s registered trademarks, FCA did establish new rights in certain new trade dress elements and the ITC should issue an order prohibiting import of infringing parts. The full commission reviewed the initial determination and issued a final determination on June 11, 2020. The International Trade Commission has upheld the Administrative Law Judge’s determination which held that the ROXOR does not violate any of FCA’s registered trademarks, but it violated FCA’s trade dress and had recommended an exclusion order prohibiting the importation of Roxor parts and a cease-and desist order prohibiting sale of any already imported Roxor parts. The Company and Mahindra Automotive North America, a Subsidiary of the Company remain resolute in its position that the ROXOR does not dilute or violate Jeep’s trade dress.