In short
Unfair competition and a competition-law infringement are not the same action. Unfair competition debates, in court and within the frame of the Commercial Code, a commercial practice contrary to the rule of good faith. A competition-law infringement goes to the Competition Board within the frame of Law No. 4054. Even if the same event calls both names to mind, a single petition does not finish both doors.
One in court, the other at the Board
Confusion over a signboard, an unjust harming of commercial reputation, or drawing a benefit from someone else's product of work contrary to good faith, is an example field of unfair competition. The action is filed in the commercial judiciary. The opponent is the merchant who did the act. The decision sought may be that the act stop and that the damage be made good. Which head will be sought is built from the concrete document. This article does not set out again a long list of the elements.
Fixing prices together, sharing a market, abusing a dominant position, or not taking to the Board a merger that had to be notified, is the field of Law No. 4054. A complaint is not a copy of a court petition. The Board's on-site inspection is a separate act as well. The inspection minutes do not stand in for the statement of claim. Which door is open is chosen from the nature of the act.
The same act may call two names to mind
A commercial conduct may suggest both the rule of good faith and a restriction of competition. This does not mean a single petition will conclude both statutes. The opponent, the authority, and the decision sought change. A petition given to the court is not treated as an application made to the Board. A complaint given to the Board is not an action filed in court either. If there are two files, the papers of the two are not mixed.
The evidence also changes with the door. A photograph of the signboard, an invoice, and customer correspondence are often seen in a claim of unfair competition. The text of an agreement, correspondence, and market data are looked for in a complaint to the Board. The existence of one does not of itself open the other door. While there is no evidence, the name of the act is not copied from the complaint sentence of the rival firm.
A prohibition in the contract is a third text
A non-compete clause in a franchise or dealership contract is read first from the contract. A contract clause does not of itself become a complaint to the Board or an action for unfair competition. If the prohibition writes the period and the geography in the contract, that writing is taken as the basis. If it does not, the prohibition is not widened from memory. Breach of the contract follows the commercial contract's own track.
If the dealer uses the old signboard after the contract has ended, this may be a question other than the non-compete clause. The signboard may also have been tied to a trademark permission. The permission document and the non-compete clause are not taken for the same paper. Which of them has ended is read from its date. If there is no date, the contract is not accepted as still standing. Whether it is standing is understood from the termination writing.
There is no rate and no penalty in this article
The measure of a Board fine is not in this article. The amount of court compensation is not here either. The separation of the two doors is made without choosing a figure. The figure is in the text of the decision or of the contract itself. While there is no text, a percentage or an amount is not invented. An invented measure does not justify the head of the petition.
The complainant first chooses which authority to go to. Sending the same text to two institutions on the same day, without choosing, does not consolidate the files. Each institution reads the papers according to its own duty. A part that remains outside the duty does not mean the other door has opened. The duty is understood from the account of the act and from the result that is sought.
A formal notice may have been sent, before the court, as a request to stop the act. A formal notice does not stand in for a complaint to the Board. Which institution it went to is read from the addressee line. The papers stand separately in the two files.
The frame of unfair competition is in unfair competition, and an application to the Board is in the article a complaint to the Board. An on-site inspection is in an inspection, the franchise text is in franchise, and breach of the contract is in the article a commercial contract.
Which door will be chosen
The document of the act, the opponent, and the decision sought are read side by side; the court door and the Board door are separated. The office being in Çankaya does not change the competent court or the Board's authority. The competent place is read from the nature of the act and from the institution the service will go to.
Conclusion
An action for unfair competition and a competition-law infringement are not the same action. One stands in the Commercial Code and in court, the other in Law No. 4054 and at the Competition Board. The frame is on the commercial law page.
The basis is the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 and the Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition.