{"id":3180,"date":"2021-02-23T10:00:00","date_gmt":"2021-02-23T07:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.efeshukuk.com\/?p=3180"},"modified":"2021-06-24T18:13:34","modified_gmt":"2021-06-24T15:13:34","slug":"markalar-arasi-iltibas","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/efeshukuk.com\/en\/markalar-arasi-iltibas\/","title":{"rendered":"Ambiguity Between Brands in Supreme Court Decisions"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Markalar<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Yarg\u0131tay Kararlar\u0131nda Markalar Aras\u0131 \u0130ltibas | \u0130zmir Lawyer <\/a>| Izmir Law Firm <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u0130ltibas Kavram\u0131<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>
\n

isim, eskimi\u015f, (iltiba:s\u0131), Arap\u00e7a iltib\u0101s<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And\u0131r\u0131\u015fma.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

\u0130ltibas hukukumuzda tescilli marka ile ili\u015fkilendirilme ve kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmaya yol a\u00e7ma anlam\u0131nda kullan\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. \u0130ltibas\u0131n s\u00f6z konusu oldu\u011funda, ki\u015fi mal ve hizmetler bak\u0131m\u0131ndan tescilli marka ile iltibasa sebebiyet veren markan\u0131n birbirinden farkl\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve ayn\u0131 s\u00fcje oldu\u011fu yan\u0131lg\u0131s\u0131na kap\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mevzuat Kapsam\u0131nda Markalar Aras\u0131 \u0130ltibas<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Marka hakk\u0131na tecav\u00fcz say\u0131lan fiiller
Madde 29<\/strong>– (1) A\u015fa\u011f\u0131daki fiiller marka hakk\u0131na tecav\u00fcz say\u0131l\u0131r:
a) Marka sahibinin izni olmaks\u0131z\u0131n, markay\u0131 7 nci maddede belirtilen bi\u00e7imlerde kullanmak.
b) Marka sahibinin izni olmaks\u0131z\u0131n, markay\u0131 veya ay\u0131rt edilemeyecek kadar benzerini kullanmak suretiyle markay\u0131 taklit etmek.
c) Markay\u0131 veya ay\u0131rt edilemeyecek kadar benzerini kullanmak suretiyle markan\u0131n taklit edildi\u011fini bildi\u011fi veya bilmesi gerekti\u011fi h\u00e2lde tecav\u00fcz yoluyla kullan\u0131lan markay\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131yan \u00fcr\u00fcnleri satmak, da\u011f\u0131tmak, ba\u015fka bir \u015fekilde ticaret alan\u0131na \u00e7\u0131karmak, ithal i\u015flemine tabi tutmak, ihra\u00e7 etmek, ticari ama\u00e7la elde bulundurmak veya bu \u00fcr\u00fcne dair s\u00f6zle\u015fme yapmak i\u00e7in \u00f6neride bulunmak.
\u00e7) Marka sahibi taraf\u0131ndan lisans yoluyla verilmi\u015f haklar\u0131 izinsiz geni\u015fletmek veya bu haklar\u0131 \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015filere devretmek.
(2) 19 uncu maddenin ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131 h\u00fckm\u00fc tecav\u00fcz davalar\u0131nda def\u2019i olarak ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclebilir. Bu durumda kullan\u0131ma ili\u015fkin be\u015f y\u0131ll\u0131k s\u00fcrenin belirlenmesinde dava tarihi esas
al\u0131n\u0131r.<\/span><\/p>SINA\u0130 M\u00dcLK\u0130YET KANUNU<\/a><\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Ambiguity Between Brands in Supreme Court Decisions<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

T.C. YARGITAY 11. HUKUK DA\u0130RES\u0130 E. 2015\/6266 K. 2016\/81<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Somut olayda, davac\u0131 “ZARA” esas unsurlu markalar\u0131na dayanm\u0131\u015f olup daval\u0131 Y. K.’n\u0131n tescil ba\u015fvurusuna konu marka “AZARA GOLD” ibaresinden m\u00fcte\u015fekkildir. Buna g\u00f6re, i\u015faretler aras\u0131nda yaz\u0131l\u0131\u015f ve telaffuz y\u00f6n\u00fcnden farkl\u0131l\u0131klar oldu\u011fu gibi anlamsal a\u00e7\u0131dan da bir benzerlik bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, ayr\u0131ca i\u015faretlerin toplu olarak b\u0131rakt\u0131\u011f\u0131 izlenimin de iltibas tehlikesine yol a\u00e7acak derecede benzerlik ta\u015f\u0131mad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fc gerekirken yaz\u0131l\u0131 gerek\u00e7e ile davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesi do\u011fru olmam\u0131\u015f, karar\u0131n bozulmas\u0131 gerekmi\u015ftir.<\/u><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

YARGITAY 11. HUKUK DA\u0130RES\u0130 E. 2011\/15498 K. 2013\/11572<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Dava konusu ba\u015fvuru, T\u00fcrk\u00e7e kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 “Bayan \u0130nce” anlam\u0131na gelen “Miss Slim” kelimelerinden olu\u015fmaktad\u0131r. Davac\u0131n\u0131n itiraz\u0131na dayanak markalar\u0131 ise “Mis” as\u0131l unsurunu i\u00e7ermektedir<\/strong>. 556 Say\u0131l\u0131 KHK’nin 8\/1-b maddesi uyar\u0131nca i\u015faretler aras\u0131nda iltibas tehlikesinin bulunup bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususunda yap\u0131lacak de\u011ferlendirmede inceleme konusu i\u015faretler aras\u0131nda g\u00f6rsel, i\u015fitsel, anlamsal ve yaz\u0131l\u0131\u015f benzerlikleri ve i\u015faretlerin bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak \u00fcr\u00fcnlerin ortalama t\u00fcketicileri nezdinde b\u0131rakt\u0131\u011f\u0131 genel izleniminin dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekir. Somut uyu\u015fmazl\u0131kta i\u015faretler aras\u0131nda anlamsal farkl\u0131l\u0131klar oldu\u011fu gibi yaz\u0131l\u0131\u015f ve telaffuz a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan da bir benzerlik bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, ayr\u0131ca i\u015faretlerin toplu olarak b\u0131rakt\u0131\u011f\u0131 izlenimin de iltibas tehlikesine yol a\u00e7acak derecede benzerlik ta\u015f\u0131mad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/strong> Bu bak\u0131mdan a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n reddine karar vermek gerekirken yaz\u0131l\u0131 gerek\u00e7eyle kabul\u00fc do\u011fru olmam\u0131\u015f, karar\u0131n bozulmas\u0131 gerekmi\u015ftir.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

YARGITAY 11. HUKUK DA\u0130RES\u0130 E. 2012\/13202 K. 2013\/10026<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Davac\u0131 vekili, davac\u0131n\u0131n \u201cCAN K\u00d6FTE AKH\u0130SAR+\u015fekil\u201d ibareli marka ba\u015fvurusunun TPE Markalar Dairesi’nce dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 \u015firkete ait \u201cCAN \u015eEKERLEME\u201d ibareli markaya ay\u0131rt edilemeyecek derecede benzer oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6sterilerek 556 Say\u0131l\u0131 KHK’n\u0131n 7\/1 ( b ) maddesi uyar\u0131nca reddedildi\u011fini, davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan bu karara yap\u0131lan itiraz\u0131n da TPE Y\u0130DK taraf\u0131ndan nihai olarak reddedildi\u011fini, ba\u015fvurunun red gerek\u00e7esi markayla benzerli\u011finin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrerek; ba\u015fvurunun reddine dair TPE Y\u0130DK’n\u0131n ilgili karar\u0131n\u0131n iptalini ve m\u00fcvekkiline ait marka ba\u015fvurusunun ilan\u0131na karar verilmesini talep ve dava etmi\u015ftir\u2026 benzerli\u011fin, genel t\u00fcketici niteli\u011fini haiz ortalama t\u00fcketici kitlesi nezdinde ilk bak\u0131\u015fta ay\u0131rt edilemeyecek d\u00fczeyde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131,<\/strong> TPE’nin ancak itiraz halinde ayn\u0131 KHK’n\u0131n 8\/1- ( b ) bendine g\u00f6re yapabilece\u011fi incelemeyi re’sen yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle, davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne TPE Y\u0130DK’n\u0131n 2011-M-3498 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n iptaline karar verilmi\u015ftir\u2026.Yukar\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerden dolay\u0131, daval\u0131 vekilinin b\u00fct\u00fcn temyiz itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n reddiyle usul ve kanuna uygun bulunan h\u00fckm\u00fcn ONANMASINA\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

YARGITAY 11. HUKUK DA\u0130RES\u0130 E. 2015\/3353 K. 2015\/9386<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Mahkemece iddia, savunma, toplan\u0131lan deliller, benimsenen bilirki\u015fi raporu ve t\u00fcm dosya kapsam\u0131na g\u00f6re, ba\u015fvuru markas\u0131 ile davac\u0131 markas\u0131n\u0131n tescil kapsamlar\u0131n\u0131n ayn\u0131 t\u00fcr oldu\u011fu, anlamsal a\u00e7\u0131dan ise farkl\u0131 olduklar\u0131, ba\u015fvuru markas\u0131ndaki \u201cN…\u201d kelimesinin ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131n, ek kelime sebebiyle g\u00f6rsel, kavramsal ve i\u015fitsel a\u00e7\u0131dan farkl\u0131la\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan 556 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK’n\u0131n 8\/1-b maddesi uyar\u0131nca markalar aras\u0131nda kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lma ihtimalinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131<\/strong> ayr\u0131ca, markan\u0131n tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f ise de, ba\u015fvuru markas\u0131n\u0131n bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde davac\u0131 markas\u0131na benzer olmamas\u0131 ve KHK’n\u0131n 8\/4 maddesindeki risklerin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ispat edilememesi sebebiyle bu maddenin uygulanmas\u0131 imkan\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131<\/strong>, davac\u0131 taraf\u00e7a ticaret unvan\u0131n\u0131n \u201cN…\u201d ibaresini ta\u015f\u0131mas\u0131 nedeniyle KHK’n\u0131n 8\/5 maddesindeki imkandan yararlanmak istenilmi\u015f ise de, \u201cN…\u201d ve \u201cN…\u201d ibarelerinin bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak birbirlerine benzemedikleri ve davac\u0131 \u015firketin tescil kapsam\u0131nda kalan mal ve hizmetlere ili\u015fkin bir faaliyeti ispat edilemedi\u011finden bu maddenin uygulama imkan\u0131n\u0131n da bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle, davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

YARGITAY 11. HUKUK DA\u0130RES\u0130 E. 2016\/222 K. 2017\/3858<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Mahkemece iddia, savunma, bilirki\u015fi raporu, toplanan deliller ve t\u00fcm dosya kapsam\u0131na g\u00f6re, davaya konu \u00fcr\u00fcnlerin g\u00f6rselleri ya da ambalajlar\u0131n\u0131n da marka olarak tescil edilmesine imkan bulundu\u011fu, ba\u015fvurunun, The court ruled to dismiss the case on the grounds that the plaintiff's trademark, design, and actual products and packaging bear no resemblance whatsoever to the mark; that there is no auditory, visual, conceptual, or general impressionistic similarity to the mark and sign that would lead to the perception that they belong to companies administratively and economically connected to each other; that it is not possible to establish a connection between these signs; and that the plaintiff failed to prove its claims of similarity, recognition, and bad faith application.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other works that may be of interest to you;<\/p>\n\n\n\n