EXCLUSIVE: “Wrong entity named, summons arbitrary”, Publicis Groupe tells Delhi HC
The petition (seen by Storyboard18) argues that “Publicis Groupe” is neither a juristic person nor an “enterprise” as defined under Section 2(h) of the Competition Act, 2002, and thus cannot be subjected to investigation.
ADVERTISEMENT
TLG India Private Limited, the Indian arm of French advertising giant Publicis Groupe, has filed a petition in the Delhi High Court challenging the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) investigation into alleged anti-competitive practices, contending that the proceedings were wrongly initiated against “Publicis Groupe” — a brand name and trademark — rather than a recognized legal entity.
The petition (seen by Storyboard18) argues that “Publicis Groupe” is neither a juristic person nor an “enterprise” as defined under Section 2(h) of the Competition Act, 2002, and thus cannot be subjected to investigation. TLG India maintains that it is the appropriate legal entity to be named as the opposite party in the proceedings.
Despite this, the Director General (DG), CCI’s investigative arm, issued a summons to Anupriya Acharya, designated as CEO of Publicis Groupe South Asia, to appear before it. The company has clarified that “Publicis Groupe South Asia” does not exist as a registered entity and that the designation is merely an internal title for regional leadership.
TLG India has claimed a violation of its fundamental rights under Article 14 of the Constitution, asserting that both the CCI and the DG failed to provide access to case records and the preliminary findings order (PF Order). This was despite a formal inspection application filed on March 26, 2025. The company contends that the denial of access undermines its ability to mount an effective defense and violates principles of natural justice under Section 36(1) of the Act.
TLG India said it has been compelled to rely on a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) warrant and panchnama from a search and seizure operation to even understand the scope of the investigation, which it argues is procedurally unfair.
In support of its arguments, TLG India cited the MRF Limited v. Competition Commission of India case decided by the Madras High Court, where the court held that an entity has the right to know its exact status in proceedings. It also referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in CCI v. Co-ordination Committee of Artists and Others (2014), which clarified that only entities engaged in commercial activity for economic benefit could be treated as “enterprises.”
Further, the petition stresses that a brand or commercial name is only a “mark” under Section 2(1)(m) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, and cannot be considered a natural or juristic person. It argues that vague references to “Publicis Groupe” cannot confer legal standing under Section 2(l) of the Competition Act.
The petition seeks multiple directions from the court, including:
Quashing of the summons dated July 9, 2025, and the DG notice dated August 4, 2025.
Inspection rights over case records, as granted to other parties in Suo Motu Case No. 02 of 2024.
Substitution of TLG India Pvt. Ltd. as the proper opposite party in the proceedings, replacing “Publicis Groupe.”
Rectification of the initial September 8, 2024 order under Section 38 of the Competition Act.
The company emphasized that the CCI has already identified other opposite parties in the same case by specific registered companies, such as WPP group being represented by GroupM Media India Pvt. Ltd., and that a similar approach should apply to Publicis.
The matter escalated during a search operation at TLG India’s premises, where investigators insisted on the presence of Acharya. The company alleges that its counsel was prevented from interacting with employees during the raid. Both Acharya and CFO Suraj Shetty, however, were noted to have cooperated fully, with the panchnama bearing TLG India’s seal — further evidencing that it is the principal Publicis entity operating in India.
TLG India has accused CCI of arbitrary action, selective denial of rights, and failure to apply their mind in identifying the proper entity under investigation. It contends that CCI’s conduct violates both the letter and spirit of the Competition Act, which restricts anti-competitive proceedings to enterprises or associations of enterprises, not mere commercial brands.
The petition states, "By refusing to allow inspection while simultaneously compelling attendance through summonses, the DG has undermined the due process obligations under Sections 36 and 41 of the Act, the petition states."
The petition comes in the backdrop of a sweeping CCI probe launched in March 2025 into suspected price-fixing and collusion among major ad agencies on publicity rates and discounts. The investigation followed dawn raids on leading advertising groups including Publicis, WPP’s GroupM, Dentsu, Omnicom, Havas, Madison, IPG, and also extended to industry bodies such as the Advertising Agencies Association of India (AAAI), the Indian Society of Advertisers (ISA), and the Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation (IBDF).
Publicis is the first advertising company to challenge the regulator’s procedure in court. Earlier in July 2025, it had urged the CCI to keep “further investigation in abeyance” until it was allowed to review case documents. However, the regulator proceeded with its probe, issuing summons to Publicis’ South Asia management and seeking contracts, revenue-sharing agreements, and other records.
Delhi High Court in its recent order issued a notice to the Competition Commission of India (CCI) and directed to submit its reply within two weeks. The court has listed the matter for the next hearing on October 9, 2025, and also ordered that a copy of the prima facie opinion passed by the regulator in Suo Motu Case No. 2 of 2024 be produced on the next date. The case pertains to alleged media cartelization and price fixing.
TLG India Private Limited was represented by a team from Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas comprising of Avaantika Kakkar, Partner (Head of Competition) and Aman Singh Baroka, Principal Associate, while senior advocate Jayant Mehta represented the CCI along with his legal team.
