CCI turns down complaint against Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Netrika Consulting, and Open Thinking Academy

CCI turns down complaint against Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Netrika Consulting, and Open Thinking Academy

Observes that the petitioner had repeatedly misused the copyrights and trademarks

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has closed the case and rejected the contentions of the informant regarding the alleged violations of Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002.

The bench comprising Ravneet Kaur (chairperson) Sangeeta Verma (member), and Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi (member) refuted the assertions of the informant Kanwaljeet Kaur Soni against the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE), Netrika Consulting India Private Limited (NCIPL), and the Open Thinking Academy (OTA).

The informant offers study resources and coaching for individuals aiming to become Certified Fraud Examiners (CFEs) through the course provided by the ACFE, a private organization based in the US. It focuses on reducing fraud and white-collar crimes and conducts the CFE certification course, which requires passing an exam.

The eligibility criteria for the exams are set by ACFE through its Board of Regents. The CFE credentials are renewed annually by paying a fee. For its expertise in fraud prevention and detection, the accreditation is recognized globally.

NCIPL, a private consulting and investigating agency, is appointed by ACFE as an Authorized Training Partner (ATP) for CFE certification training in India, while OTA is ATP for four countries - the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman, and Malaysia, since 2015. It provides services for the CFE course and the Certified Internal Auditor (CIA) course.

ACFE established itself early in the field of fraud prevention, securing partnerships with major organizations and becoming a dominant certification provider due to its ecosystem and anti-fraud education efforts.

Meanwhile, with the rise in CFE exam applicants, the informant began assisting candidates in exam preparation.

In 2009, ACFE offered study support, including training courses and appointing ATPs. In 2019, NCIPL became ATP for India. The informant stated that initially, ACFE showed interest in making the informant an ATP, however, it later declined due to their agreement with NCIPL.

The informant defined two relevant markets - expertise in fraud detection as primary, and CFE exam preparation as secondary. She argued that ACFE was the only entity providing CFE certification across the world. It imparted overall expertise in fraud detection and prevention.

She alleged that it held a significant market share (55 percent to 76 percent) in the markets worldwide. She also accused ACFE of abusing its dominant position by imposing unfair conditions through its bylaws. This restricted third-party preparatory services for aspirants of ACFE, which made allegations of copyright and trademark infringement against the informant.

The informant claimed that ACFE OP-1 accused her of infringing copyrights and trademarks and issued ‘cease-and-desist’ notices based on trademark rights, leading to content removal. However, it did not possess the rights.

She also informed that ACFE appointed only one ATP in each country for CFE coaching and its agreements allegedly created barriers to entry for potential tutors or institutes and foreclosure of competition causing Appreciable Adverse Effect on Competition (AAEC) under Section 3(4) of the Act.

The CCI observed that it was not necessary to define a relevant market or establish dominance to evaluate the allegations under the Act. It noted that ACFE issued notices to the informant for unauthorized use of its study material, claiming copyright and trademark infringement. Its communications indicated that it agreed to the creation of study content but without infringing its intellectual property rights. As per the notices, the informant agreed to remove the objectionable content.

The Commission highlighted that ACFE also approached the informant to become an ATP for India. However, it later chose another entity due to its concerns about the informant's repeated misuse of its copyrights and trademarks.

Thus, the CCI held that there was no contravention of the Competition Act by the entities and rejected the informant's request for relief under Section 33 of the Act. However, the informant could seek remedies through appropriate legal forums, the Commission clarified.