This case summary includes an analysis of Turkish Competition Board’s (the “Board”) BFIT preliminary investigation decision (07.02.2019, 19-06/64-27) in which the Board evaluated non-compete and no-poaching obligations imposed by Bfit Sağlık ve Spor Yatırım ve Tic. A.Ş. (“BFIT”) to its franchisees. Accordingly, the Board concluded not to launch an investigation against BFIT and ordered BFIT to terminate the infringement under Article 9/3 of Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Law No. 4054”). The Board stated that BFIT has to revise non-compete and no-poaching clauses to comply with Law No. 4054 and Block Exemption Communiqué on Vertical Agreements (“Communiqué No. 2002/2”). Background BFIT provides right to use its trademark to franchisees to open gyms, via franchising agreements. Under
Share on
|
|
The Turkish Competition Authority finds no-poaching clauses in a gym company’s franchising agreements to be against competition law (BFIT)
Access to this article is restricted to subscribers
Already Subscribed? Sign-in
Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.
Read one article for free
Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.
