Competition Authority received a defense | General News

The Competition Board held an oral defence meeting for the investigation into two companies operating in the field of aseptic liquid food filling machines and aseptic liquid food packaging production and sales.

The meeting was held at the Competition Authority under the presidency of Ahmet Algan, Vice President of the Competition Board. Algan reminded that an investigation was launched against Tetra Laval Holding & Finance SA and Tetra Pak Ambalaj Sanayi ve Ticaret Limited Şirketi to determine whether they violated the relevant article of the Law on the Protection of Competition.

The representative of the investigation board stated that no violations were detected as a result of the examination, detection and evaluation conducted, indicating that the undertakings in question abused their dominant position in the relevant sector, and that there was no need to impose an administrative fine. On the other hand, the representative requested that Tetra Pak Ambalaj Sanayi ve Ticaret Limited Şirketi report to the Institution the usage rate of the aseptic liquid food cardboard packaging production and sales market for 10 years at 2-year intervals due to possible competitive concerns regarding the trademark right related to Tetra Prizma Aseptic packaging, and that Tetra Laval Holding & Finance SA also notify the Competition Authority regarding the registration applications to the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office regarding the intellectual property rights related to three-dimensional shapes.

The representative also reported that it was concluded that a cooperation protocol could be developed between the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office and the Competition Authority regarding competitive concerns created by trademark and design applications related to three-dimensional shapes.

The floor was then given to the representatives of the parties.

The representative of the complaining enterprise claimed that the two companies abused their dominant position in the market and requested that administrative fines be imposed on them.

Representatives of the undertakings under investigation argued that the companies had not violated the relevant law and therefore there was no need for a penalty, and requested that the request for notification obligation of the investigation representative be rejected.

The Board will announce its final decision regarding the investigation within 15 days. If the decision is made earlier, it will be announced on the Institution’s website.