THE CONCEPT OF BAD FAITH IN LIMITATION  IN CONSEQUENCE OF ACQUİESCENCE IN TRADE MARK LAW

Pınar Uzun Şenol

Makale detayları

THE CONCEPT OF BAD FAITH IN LIMITATION IN CONSEQUENCE OF ACQUİESCENCE IN TRADE MARK LAW

Yazarlar:

Pınar Uzun Şenol

Yayıncı:

Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University

Ana Başlıklar:

Hukuk (Diğer)

Dergi:

Ticaret ve Fikri Mülkiyet Hukuku Dergisi Vol.10 Issue 1, pp.167-184

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001323207

pISSN:

2149-4576

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 Limitation in consequence of acquiescence, which has a legal basis within the scope of trade mark law with Industrial Property Law No. 6769 art. 256, is a ground of defense that can be used by the proprietor of a later date trade mark. This defense is alleged only in a trade mark invalidation proceedings against the previous proprietor who is at risk of forfeiture by the later trade mark proprietor. Accepting the defense of limitation in consequence of acquiescence makes the infringement committed by the later trade mark proprietor legal. However, the only exception to this regulation is if the later trade mark proprietor is in bad faith. The state of being in bad faith must also be qualified in terms of the basis of application of the relevant article. However, the concept of bad faith in limitation in consequence of acquiescence is not regulated in detail in a separate article in the law. On the other hand, different views have been included in the doctrine regarding the formation of the state of being in bad faith, and the Supreme Court has made contrary decisions. Aftermath of the detection of bad faith, determining the moment when bad faith will be sought is another important element that should be deemed in the defense of limitation in consequence of acquiescence. In fact, whether the bad faith exists from the moment the trade mark is registered or occurs later creates differences in the applicability of the defense of limitation in consequence of acquiescence. In this respect, along with the determination of the moment when bad faith will be sought, it is important to evaluate the effect of the existence of bad faith from the beginning on the validity of the defense and the possible effect of filing a lawsuit after a long time despite bad faith on the defense, in line with the doctrine and the Supreme Court decisions.

 Limitation in consequence of acquiescence, which has a legal basis within the scope of trade mark law with Industrial Property Law No. 6769 art. 256, is a ground of defense that can be used by the proprietor of a later date trade mark. This defense is alleged only in a trade mark invalidation proceedings against the previous proprietor who is at risk of forfeiture by the later trade mark proprietor. Accepting the defense of limitation in consequence of acquiescence makes the infringement committed by the later trade mark proprietor legal. However, the only exception to this regulation is if the later trade mark proprietor is in bad faith. The state of being in bad faith must also be qualified in terms of the basis of application of the relevant article. However, the concept of bad faith in limitation in consequence of acquiescence is not regulated in detail in a separate article in the law. On the other hand, different views have been included in the doctrine regarding the formation of the state of being in bad faith, and the Supreme Court has made contrary decisions. Aftermath of the detection of bad faith, determining the moment when bad faith will be sought is another important element that should be deemed in the defense of limitation in consequence of acquiescence. In fact, whether the bad faith exists from the moment the trade mark is registered or occurs later creates differences in the applicability of the defense of limitation in consequence of acquiescence. In this respect, along with the determination of the moment when bad faith will be sought, it is important to evaluate the effect of the existence of bad faith from the beginning on the validity of the defense and the possible effect of filing a lawsuit after a long time despite bad faith on the defense, in line with the doctrine and the Supreme Court decisions.

 Limitation in consequence of acquiescence, which has a legal basis within the scope of trade mark law with Industrial Property Law No. 6769 art. 256, is a ground of defense that can be used by the proprietor of a later date trade mark. This defense is alleged only in a trade mark invalidation proceedings against the previous proprietor who is at risk of forfeiture by the later trade mark proprietor. Accepting the defense of limitation in consequence of acquiescence makes the infringement committed by the later trade mark proprietor legal. However, the only exception to this regulation is if the later trade mark proprietor is in bad faith. The state of being in bad faith must also be qualified in terms of the basis of application of the relevant article. However, the concept of bad faith in limitation in consequence of acquiescence is not regulated in detail in a separate article in the law. On the other hand, different views have been included in the doctrine regarding the formation of the state of being in bad faith, and the Supreme Court has made contrary decisions. Aftermath of the detection of bad faith, determining the moment when bad faith will be sought is another important element that should be deemed in the defense of limitation in consequence of acquiescence. In fact, whether the bad faith exists from the moment the trade mark is registered or occurs later creates differences in the applicability of the defense of limitation in consequence of acquiescence. In this respect, along with the determination of the moment when bad faith will be sought, it is important to evaluate the effect of the existence of bad faith from the beginning on the validity of the defense and the possible effect of filing a lawsuit after a long time despite bad faith on the defense, in line with the doctrine and the Supreme Court decisions.

 6769 sayılı Sınai Mülkiyet Kanunu md. 256 ile marka hukuku kapsamında yasal dayanağı oluşan sessiz kalma yoluyla hak kaybı, sonraki tarihli marka sahibi tarafından kullanılabilecek bir savunma nedenidir. Bu savunma, sonraki tarihli marka sahibi tarafından hakkını kaybetme riskini taşıyan önceki hak sahibi aleyhine salt markanın hükümsüzlüğü davasında ileri sürülür. Sessiz kalma yoluyla hak kaybı savunmasının kabul edilmesi, sonraki tarihli marka sahibi tarafından meydana gelen ihlali hukuka uygun hâle getirmektedir. Ancak, bu düzenlemenin tek istisnası sonraki tarihli marka sahibinin kötüniyetli olmasıdır. İlgili maddenin uygulanma esası açısından da kötüniyetli olma hâlinin nitelendirilmesi gerekir. Ancak, sessiz kalma yoluyla hak kaybında kötüniyet kavramı, Kanunda ayrı bir madde içerisinde ve detaylı bir şekilde düzenlenmemiştir. Öte yandan, kötüniyetli olma hâlinin oluşumuna dair öğretide farklı görüşlere yer verilmiş ve Yargıtayın da aksi yönde verdiği kararlar olmuştur. Kötüniyetin tespitinin ardından kötüniyetin aranacağı anın da belirlenmesi, sessiz kalma yoluyla hak kaybı savunmasında dikkate alınması gereken diğer önemli unsurdur. Öyle ki, kötüniyetin sonraki markanın tescil edildiği andan itibaren var olması ile daha sonradan oluşması, sessiz kalma yoluyla hak kaybı savunmasının uygulanabilirliğinde farklılıklar meydana getirir. Bu itibarla, kötüniyetin aranacağı anın tespiti ile birlikte, kötüniyetin başlangıçtan beri var olmasının savunmanın geçerliliğine olan etkisi ve kötüniyete rağmen uzun süre sonra dava açılmasının savunmaya olası etkisinin, öğreti ve Yargıtay kararları doğrultusunda, değerlendirilmesi önem arz eder.

Makale detayları

THE CONCEPT OF BAD FAITH IN LIMITATION IN CONSEQUENCE OF ACQUİESCENCE IN TRADE MARK LAW

Yazarlar:

Pınar Uzun Şenol

Yayıncı:

Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University

Ana Başlıklar:

Hukuk (Diğer)

Dergi:

Ticaret ve Fikri Mülkiyet Hukuku Dergisi Vol.10 Issue 1, pp.167-184

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001323207

pISSN:

2149-4576

trade mark law

limitation in consequence of acquiescence

bad faithmarka hukuku

sessiz kalma yoluyla hak kaybı

kötüniyet

Sayı

Makale detayları

THE CONCEPT OF BAD FAITH IN LIMITATION IN CONSEQUENCE OF ACQUİESCENCE IN TRADE MARK LAW

Yazarlar: Pınar Uzun Şenol

Yayıncı: Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University

Ana Başlıklar: Hukuk (Diğer)

Dergi: Ticaret ve Fikri Mülkiyet Hukuku Dergisi Vol.10 Issue 1, pp.167-184

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 6/2024

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001323207

pISSN: 2149-4576

trade mark law

limitation in consequence of acquiescence

bad faithmarka hukuku

sessiz kalma yoluyla hak kaybı

kötüniyet

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Pınar Uzun Şenol

Yayıncı:

Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University

Ana Başlıklar:

Hukuk (Diğer)

Dergi:

Ticaret ve Fikri Mülkiyet Hukuku Dergisi Vol.10 Issue 1, pp.167-184

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001323207

pISSN:

2149-4576