Summary of Arguments

1. WHETHER "OTHER CONSOLE MANUFACTURERS" ABUSED THEIR COLLECTIVE DOMINANCE BY

CUTTING OFF ACCESS TO INFORMATION REQUIRED TO SERVICE SUCH CONSOLES?

It is humbly submitted that the collective dominance in the present situation should be recognized as an
offence under the Competition Act of 2002.The collective dominance is present in the current case as
there exists a relevant market in the present situation under which the other console manufacturers had
become collectively dominant in the market and these console manufacturers have abused their
dominant position in the relevant market.

2. WHETHER UMBRELLA HAS ABUSED HIS DOMINANCE IN THE MARKET FOR MANUFACTURE AND
SALE OF GAMING CONSOLES BY DENYING ACME ACCESS TO THIS MARKET?

It is respectfully submitted that both the parties exists in a particular relevant market and have
their presence in both relevant geographic market and relevant product market. Further it is
submitted that the Umbrella Pvt. Ltd is dominant in that relevant market and has abused his
dominance by denying Acme access to the market of manufacturing and sale of gaming
consoles.

3. WHETHER AGREEMENT BETWEEN UMBRELLA AND EPOC IS ANTI-COMPETITIVE IN NATURE?

It is most respectfully submitted that the agreement between EPOC and Umbrella is anti-competitive in
nature which and is thus void under the Competition Act of 2002 as it violates its provisions. Further the
agreement between the parties is a vertical agreement and an exclusive agreement which causes
Appreciable Adverse Effect on the Competition (AAEC) in the market.