THE LIMITS OF UNFAIR COMPETITION BY DENIGRATING UNDER THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF CIVIL CHAMBERS OF SUPREME COURT 09 January 2021

Unfair competition refers to all behaviors and practices that violate the integrity rule of the parties of the economic order and distort competition against one party. For the existence of unfair competition, it is not obligatory for the parties to be competitors, or the perpetrator to benefit from unfair competition or the perpetrator has been at fault. What is essential for the existence of unfair competition; is the use of the economic competition right contrary to the good faith. |
Rules of unfair competition are regulated under Article 54 to 63 of Turkish Commercial Code No 6102. The Article 54 of Turkish Commercial Code titled “purpose and principle” sets out the general principle of unfair competition. According to this: “behaviors or practices that are of deceptive nature or in violation with the principle of good faith between commercial rivals or suppliers and customers are qualified unjust and illegal”. In the continuation of this general principle, some unfair competition actions that are frequently encountered in practice and that are against the good faith are listed. |
It is unfair competition “to denigrate others or their goods, business products, prices, activities or business affairs with false, misleading or unnecessarily offensive statements” according to Article 55/1-a of Turkish Commercial Code No 6102. The term "denigration" here, in general terms, refers to behaviors that will create a negative impression of a person's commercial life. As it can be understood from the text of the article, in order for unfair competition to occur within the scope of such article, it is necessary to disparage the activities of others with unnecessarily offensive statements. According to the justification of the Article, denigration includes defamation, obscuring, belittling and dropping its value according to the concrete event. Therefore defamation, obscuring or belittling others or their goods, business products, prices, activities or business affairs is considered within the scope of "denigration". In order for the declaration of denigration to constitute unfair competition; this declaration should be made with false, misleading or unnecessarily offensive explanations. First of all, the main issue sought is that the statement to be "delusive". In other words, if the statements are true, it shall not be taken into consideration within the scope of unfair competition. The current case law of the Supreme Court has been reached a consensus in such a way that there is no room for hesitation to unfair competition be mentioned if the statement is true. |
As it stated at The Judgement of General Assembly of Civil Chambers of Supreme Court dated 10/06/2020, numbered 2017/39 E. and 2020/396 K.: in order for the "denigration" in the article to be qualified as "unfair competition", first there must be a statement, it must be about personality, property, work products, activities or commercial affairs of others; and finally, this statement must be false, misleading or unnecessarily offensive. False statement is a statement that content is incompatible with the truth, and that content is objectively incorrect about a particular fact or event or situation. Misleading statements are statements that, when evaluated together with their nature, style and content, may cause the addressee of the statement to fall into error and make a false impression on them. And an unnecessarily hurtful statement which exceeds its purpose by creating a negative impression about a person, his/her activities, work products etc. and create a negative impression about while being accurate in its content. (Suluk, Cahit / Karasu, Rauf / Nal, Temel: Fikri Mülkiyet Hukuku, Ankara, 2017, s.428) |
The only criterion for determining whether the statement is "false" is whether it is compatible with reality. If the statement is accurate, then unfair competition cannot be mentioned. On the other hand, the criterion to be used for determining whether the statement is "misleading" or "unnecessarily hurtful" is the usual medium-skilled addressee of the statement. |
In other words, whichever group the statement is made to, the mode of understanding of a person of medium ability belonging to that group will be taken as basis. Therefore, the way that the explanation is perceived by the average addressee is important not how the statement is perceived by a particular person or persons. (Ülgen, Hüseyin / Helvacı, Mehmet / Kendigelen, Abuzer / Kaya, Aslan / Nomer Ertan, Füsun: Ticari İşletme Hukuku, İstanbul, 2015, s. 540) |
In the dispute subject to the decision of the General Assembly of Civil Chambers of Supreme Court dated 10/06/2020, numbered 2017/39 E. and 2020/396 K.; the plaintiff has claimed that the plaintiff has purchased a port crane from the defendant company and spare parts service from the other defendant to this crane, and that although any service has not been requested from the defendant it has been notified to plaintiff that the cylinder of the crane is ultrasound checked and needs to be replaced immediately and that the crane’s guarantee term has expired, and upon this the plaintiff got a report by a private company that there were no cracks on the cylinder, despite this the defendants has reported that the cylinder is cracked to the Port Authority, and that it is unfair competition that the defendants to report the crane is cracked to the Port Authority although there is not such a malfunction; and demanded the defendants’ actions to be determined as unfair competition, and to be prohibited, the district court has partially accepted the case on the grounds that the action damaged the commercial reputation of the plaintiff and caused unfair competition, the parties appealed the decision, all appeals of the parties has been rejected and the decision has been approved. |
The defendant's attorney has requested a correction of the decision. The 11th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court stated that in the expert report taken by the district court during the trial that it has been clearly determined that there has a crack in the hydraulic cylinder as a result of the measurements made by two separate ultrasound devices. Thereupon, it has been decided by the high court that it is not possible that the defendants' warnings of security to the company which the plaintiff is doing business to be considered as disparaging their commodity, work product, activity or commercial affairs with false, misleading or unnecessary statements. For this reason, contrary to the acceptance of the district court, the high court overturned the decision of the district court by finding it wrong that the decision of the acceptance of the case with a wrong evaluation in writing, while it has been necessary to dismiss the case, although there was no false, misleading or offensive statement about the plaintiff in terms of the content of the letter written by the defendant party to the port operator. |
The district court resisted in its decision for previous reasons, and the dispute has been transferred to the Supreme Court Legal General Assembly. |
The General Assembly of the Supreme Court, decided that the notification subject to the case did not constitute unfair competition on the grounds that "because of the fact that it is detected by the experts that there is a crack on the cylinder of the crane; giving a security warning to the Port Authority by the defendants cannot be determined as denigrating personality or goods, business products, activities or business affairs of the plaintiff with false, misleading or unnecessarily offensive statements, since it is established that the statements of the defendants are not false, it is understood that this statement is not misleading or unnecessarily offensive. |
As can be clearly seen in the aforementioned decision, the accuracy of the statement subject to unfair competition has been taken as basis; it was emphasized that the notification made regarding the problem occurring during the execution of the contractual relationship between the parties cannot be described as defamation of the plaintiff's personality, commodity, work product, activity or commercial affairs with false, misleading or unnecessary statements. Therefore, reporting a defect, error or dysfunction related to a good or service to the relevant third parties with correct content cannot be considered within the scope of unfair competition. |
Other News
-
4.1.2021
COMMUNIQUE ON THE PROCEDURES AND PRINCIPLES RELATING TO THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 376 OF THE TURKISH COMMERCIAL LAW NO 6102 HAS BEEN CHANGED!
-
24.12.2020
NEW REGULATION ON PROCESSING OF PERSONAL DATA IN ELECTRONIC COMMMUNICATIONS SECTOR PUBLISHED
-
23.12.2020
CLIENT ALERT FOR THE TURKISH COMPANIES ON RENEWABLE ENERGY SECTOR AND CURRENT ISSUES RELATED TO RENEWABLE ENERGY SECTOR IN UKRAINE
-
13.11.2020
WHAT IS THE MONETARY LIMIT REGARDING THE SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE APPLIED IN COMMERCIAL CASES?
The monetary limit on commercial cases subject to the simplified trial procedure has been rearranged with the Law No. 7251, which entered into force on 28.07.2020. What does this amendment bring to our procedural law?
-
10.11.2020
AFTER SALES SERVICES REGULATION, INTRODUCTION AND USER MANUAL REGULATION AND WARRANTY CERTIFICATE REGULATION HAVE BEEN CHANGED
-
6.11.2020
THE PRELIMINARY INJUCTION AND PRECAUTIONARY ATTACHMENT WHICH ARE PRONOUNCED IN THE PRESENCE OF PARTIES
Is it possible to apply for an appeal within the framework of the new HMK against the preliminary injunction and precautionary attachment decisions which are pronounced in the presence? What has changed with the new HMK?
-
30.10.2020
WHAT ARE THE AMENDMENTS INTRODUCED REGARDING THE “SUBMISSION AND EVIDENTIALITY OF COMMERCIAL BOOKS?
-
23.10.2020
WHAT DOES THE NEW HMK SAY ABOUT "AMENDMENT OF PLEADING AFTER THE REVERSAL"?
A groundbreaking change has taken place that will put an end to the controversies that have been going on for decades regarding the "Amendment of Pleading After Reversal Decision" regulation of the HMK. In this newsletter, we are going to examine what the new regulation brings.
-
20.10.2020
THE GUIDELINE ON EXAMINATION OF DIGITAL DATA DURING ON-SITE INSPECTIONS IS PUBLISHED
-
16.10.2020
WHAT ARE THE CHANGES INTRODUCED REGARDING THE "EXTENSION AND CHANGE OF CLAIMS AND DEFENSE" IN THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE NUMBERED 6100 WITH THE LAW NO. 7251?
The amendments brought to the Code of Civil Procedure in terms of “the Extension and Change of the Claims and Defense” is examined with our newsletter this week.
-
15.10.2020
REVIEW ON THE DRAFT COMMUNIQUE ON REMOTE IDENTIFICATION METHODS TO BE USED BY BANKS
-
10.10.2020
WHICH AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE REGULATION RELATED TO THE PROCEDURES AND PRINCIPLES OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY MEETINGS OF JOINT STOCK COMPANIES?
A significant amendment has been made within the scope of The Regulation on the Amendment to the Regulation Related to the Procedures and Principles of the General Assembly Meetings of Joint Stock Companies and Representatives of the Ministry of Customs and Trade to Attend These Meetings published in the Official Gazette dated 09.10.2020 and numbered 31269. We will examine what the new regulation brings.
-
9.10.2020
WHAT ARE THE AMENDMENTS INTRODUCED REGARDING THE "COLLATERAL LIMITATION (EXTENSION OF TIME) TO THE RESPONSE PERIOD" IN THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE NUMBERED 6100?
With Law No.7251, which entered into force on 28.07.2020, a significant amendment has been made regarding the regulation of “Collateral Limitation to the Response Period (Time Extension) in the Code of Civil Procedure. In this newsletter, we will examine what the new regulation brings.
-
2.10.2020
“UNSPECIFIED CLAIM CASE” UNDER THE LIGHT OF THE RECENT AMENDMENTS IN THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (“CCP”)
As it is known with Law No.7251, which entered into force on 28.07.2020, many radical changes in procedural law have entered our lives.
-
25.9.2020
SHORT NOTES ON THE DIGITALIZING MUSIC INDUSTRY AND THE RESHAPING REQUIREMENT OF THE COPYRIGHT CONTRACTS
The world music industry is reshaping with the pandemic!