REPEAT-TRADEMARK IN THE CONTEXT OF OBLIGATION TO USE AND EVALUATION OF THEIR LEGAL CONSEQUENCES

Sevilay Uzunallı

Makale detayları

REPEAT-TRADEMARK IN THE CONTEXT OF OBLIGATION TO USE AND EVALUATION OF THEIR LEGAL CONSEQUENCES

Yazarlar:

Sevilay Uzunallı

Yayıncı:

Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University

Ana Başlıklar:

Hukuk

Dergi:

Ticaret ve Fikri Mülkiyet Hukuku Dergisi Vol.9 Issue 1, pp.93-115

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2023

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001294723

pISSN:

2149-4576

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 A trademark proprietor is obliged to use its trademark. Use of trademark is one of the fundamental principles of trademark law. A grace period of 5 years has been granted to trademark owners in order to prevent adverse outcomes of non-use of the trademark pursuant to Article 9.1 of the Turkish IPC. In the event the trademark proprietor fails to fulfill its obligation to use its trademark, not only its trademark may be cancelled pursuant to art.9.1 of Turkish IPC but also his opposition against the registration of a trademark due to likelihood of confusion with an earlier trademark may be rejected when faced with applicants defense of non-use or any action initiated by the trademark owner regarding the invalidation of the trademark due to same reason will be rejectedIPC ART 25.7. . Furthermore the defendant s defense of non-use in any action filed by the trademark owner due to infringement of its trademark rights defendants defense of non-use shall result in the dismissal of the action IPC art. 29.2. To prevent such adverse effects the trademark owner who doesnt put its trademark in use may re register its trademark identically or with minor changes in connection with the same goods andor services. With such registration the trademark owner aims to obtain a new grace period for the non-use of its trademark . There is no provision in the IPC as to whether this re-registration is lawful or not due circumvention of the articles related to obligation to trademark. This issue has not been regulated in the European Unions Trademark Directive No. 20152436 and Trademark Regulation No. 20171001 either. In this study, legal consequences of trademark re-application and re-registration has been examined based on the purpose of the obligation to use the trademark and the conditions of fulfilling this obligation.

 A trademark proprietor is obliged to use its trademark. Use of trademark is one of the fundamental principles of trademark law. A grace period of 5 years has been granted to trademark owners in order to prevent adverse outcomes of non-use of the trademark pursuant to Article 9.1 of the Turkish IPC. In the event the trademark proprietor fails to fulfill its obligation to use its trademark, not only its trademark may be cancelled pursuant to art.9.1 of Turkish IPC but also his opposition against the registration of a trademark due to likelihood of confusion with an earlier trademark may be rejected when faced with applicants defense of non-use or any action initiated by the trademark owner regarding the invalidation of the trademark due to same reason will be rejectedIPC ART 25.7. . Furthermore the defendant s defense of non-use in any action filed by the trademark owner due to infringement of its trademark rights defendants defense of non-use shall result in the dismissal of the action IPC art. 29.2. To prevent such adverse effects the trademark owner who doesnt put its trademark in use may re register its trademark identically or with minor changes in connection with the same goods andor services. With such registration the trademark owner aims to obtain a new grace period for the non-use of its trademark . There is no provision in the IPC as to whether this re-registration is lawful or not due circumvention of the articles related to obligation to trademark. This issue has not been regulated in the European Unions Trademark Directive No. 20152436 and Trademark Regulation No. 20171001 either. In this study, legal consequences of trademark re-application and re-registration has been examined based on the purpose of the obligation to use the trademark and the conditions of fulfilling this obligation.

 A trademark proprietor is obliged to use its trademark. Use of trademark is one of the fundamental principles of trademark law. A grace period of 5 years has been granted to trademark owners in order to prevent adverse outcomes of non-use of the trademark pursuant to Article 9.1 of the Turkish IPC. In the event the trademark proprietor fails to fulfill its obligation to use its trademark, not only its trademark may be cancelled pursuant to art.9.1 of Turkish IPC but also his opposition against the registration of a trademark due to likelihood of confusion with an earlier trademark may be rejected when faced with applicants defense of non-use or any action initiated by the trademark owner regarding the invalidation of the trademark due to same reason will be rejectedIPC ART 25.7. . Furthermore the defendant s defense of non-use in any action filed by the trademark owner due to infringement of its trademark rights defendants defense of non-use shall result in the dismissal of the action IPC art. 29.2. To prevent such adverse effects the trademark owner who doesnt put its trademark in use may re register its trademark identically or with minor changes in connection with the same goods andor services. With such registration the trademark owner aims to obtain a new grace period for the non-use of its trademark . There is no provision in the IPC as to whether this re-registration is lawful or not due circumvention of the articles related to obligation to trademark. This issue has not been regulated in the European Unions Trademark Directive No. 20152436 and Trademark Regulation No. 20171001 either. In this study, legal consequences of trademark re-application and re-registration has been examined based on the purpose of the obligation to use the trademark and the conditions of fulfilling this obligation.

 Marka sahibi markasını kullanmak zorundadır. Markayı kullanma zorunluluğu marka hukukunun temel prensiplerinden biridir. Marka sahibine SMK m. 9.1 hükmüyle markasını kullanmamasının olumsuz sonuçlarının doğmasını engellemeye yönelik beş yıllık hoşgörü süresi tanınmıştır. Marka sahibinin bu zorunluluğu yerine getirmemesi halinde, markası SMK m. 9.1, 26.1 bend a gereğince iptal edilebileceği gibi, markasıyla karıştırma ihtimaline neden olan sonraki marka başvurusuna itirazı, başvuru sahibinin kullanılmama savunmasıyla ile karşılaştığında SMK m.19.2 bu itirazı veya bu nedenle açtığı hükümsüzlük davasında aynı savunma ileri sürüldüğünde açtığı dava reddedilecektir SMK m. 25. 7. Hatta marka sahibinin marka hakkına tecavüz nedeniyle açtığı davada da, davalının kullanılmama savunması davanın reddine neden olacaktır SMK m. 29.2. Markasını kullanmayan marka sahibi, bu durumun olumsuz sonuçlarından kaçınmak için, markasını aynen ya da ufak değişikliklerle aynı veya aynı tür mal veveya hizmetler için tekrar tescil ettirmek yoluna gidebilir. Bu yeni tescille marka sahibi markasını kullanmama konusunda yeni bir hoşgörü süresi elde etmeyi hedefler. Bu tekrar tescilin kullanma zorunluluğunun dolanılması nedeniyle hukuka uygun olup olmadığı konusunda SMKda bir hüküm bulunmamaktadır. Bu konuda Avrupa Birliğinin 20152436 sayılı Marka Direktifi ve 20171001 sayılı Marka Tüzüğünde de bir düzenleme yapılmamıştır. Bu çalışmada markayı kullanma zorunluluğunun amacı ve bu zorunluluğun yerine getirilmesinin koşullarından hareketle tekrar marka başvurusu ve tescilinin hukuki sonuçları incelenmiştir.

Makale detayları

REPEAT-TRADEMARK IN THE CONTEXT OF OBLIGATION TO USE AND EVALUATION OF THEIR LEGAL CONSEQUENCES

Yazarlar:

Sevilay Uzunallı

Yayıncı:

Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University

Ana Başlıklar:

Hukuk

Dergi:

Ticaret ve Fikri Mülkiyet Hukuku Dergisi Vol.9 Issue 1, pp.93-115

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2023

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001294723

pISSN:

2149-4576

Repeat Trademark

Use of Trademark

Grace Period

Defense of Non-Use

Bad FaithTekrar Marka

Markayı Kullanma

Hoşgörü Süresi

Kullanılmama Savunması

Kötüniyet

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Sevilay Uzunallı

Yayıncı: Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University

Ana Başlıklar: Hukuk

Dergi: Ticaret ve Fikri Mülkiyet Hukuku Dergisi Vol.9 Issue 1, pp.93-115

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 6/2023

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001294723

pISSN: 2149-4576

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Sevilay Uzunallı

Yayıncı:

Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University

Ana Başlıklar:

Hukuk

Dergi:

Ticaret ve Fikri Mülkiyet Hukuku Dergisi Vol.9 Issue 1, pp.93-115

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2023

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001294723

pISSN:

2149-4576