No Abuse of Dominance by Cure-fit in Offering Membership Services to Its GYM Members as Many Rivals Offer Similar Services

Case Details: Creed Gym v. Curefit Services (P.) Ltd. - [2023] 154 taxmann.com 624 (CCI)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Ms Ravneet Kaur, Chairperson, Ms Sangeeta Verma & Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi, Member

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, OP was engaged in the business of offering subscription or membership services under the name cult-pass to individuals who were already members of established gyms.

The Informant, running a well-known gym had alleged that OP approached Informant for collaboration whereunder Informant would be listed on the online platform of OP (website and mobile application) as one of the gyms/fitness centres where OP would provide subscription/membership services, i.e., a single subscription plan to customers of Informant strictly through OP’s platform.

The Informant had averred that considering the nationwide pandemic and its financial impact and believing the representations of OP in expanding its clientele, the Informant accepted the proposal of OP, and executed a collaboration agreement with OP, which, inter alia, entailed sharing of its customer database with OP.

However, upon gaining access to the customer database and confidential information of the Informant, OP not only disabled access to its own database but also exploited the same to endorse and sell its own products such as sportswear, footwear, nutrition products, fitness equipment, wellness and care product, lab tests, therapies, food etc. without any permission from the Informant.

It was further alleged that such practice was not provided for in agreements and was being practised by OP in an unfair manner by exploiting its dominant position and had, thus, affected the working of gyms with which it had collaborated.

It was noted from information available in the public domain that apart from OP there were other entities such as Anytime Fitness, Fitpass and Gympink apparently providing similar services.

CCI Held

The CCI observed that there was no material on record to indicate that there existed any barrier for market participants in providing or accessing online fitness services.

The CCI held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, an exact delineation of the relevant market was not required as it would not materially impact the assessment of dominance.

Thus, there was no occasion to look into alleged abusive conduct. Therefore, the matter was to be closed forthwith under section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002.

List of Cases Referred to

• • Creed Gym v. CurFit Services (P.) Ltd. [Case No. OS 5291 of 2021] (para 15).