EXAMINATION OF THE NON-DISTINCTIVE USES OF REGISTERED TRADEMARKS BY THIRD PARTIES WITHIN THE SCOPE OF TRADEMARK RIGHT AND ITS EXCEPTIONS IN THE LIGHT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF EUROPEAN UNION

Başak Karmutoğlu

Makale detayları

EXAMINATION OF THE NON-DISTINCTIVE USES OF REGISTERED TRADEMARKS BY THIRD PARTIES WITHIN THE SCOPE OF TRADEMARK RIGHT AND ITS EXCEPTIONS IN THE LIGHT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF EUROPEAN UNION

Yazarlar:

Başak Karmutoğlu

Yayıncı:

Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University

Ana Başlıklar:

Hukuk (Diğer)

Dergi:

Ticaret ve Fikri Mülkiyet Hukuku Dergisi Vol.10 Issue 1, pp.119-138

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001323205

pISSN:

2149-4576

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 Articles 9 and 14 of the Regulation 20171001 on the European Union Trade Mark and articles 10 and 14 of the Directive 20152436 on the European Union Trade Mark regulate the scope of trademark right and its exceptions which are significant for our study Also, article 7 of Industrial Property Code no. 6769 was regulated in line with these regulations. This study examines the uses of registered trademarks by third parties other than for the purposes of indicating origin within the framework of the relevant provisions. There is an opinion in the doctrine defending that the use of a third party should not be in the form of a use as a mark in order to remain within the scope of honest practices. Some court decisions have supported this opinion. On the other hand, in some of its following decisions the Court of Justice of the European Union CJEU expanded the scope of protection granted to trademark owners by providing the right to the owner to prevent the use of the trademark if the use harms not only the origin function, but also the other functions of the trademark such as advertising and communication. This approach adopted by the court is called function theory. Thus, according to relevant decisions, the uses which do not have the purpose of indicating origin may also constitute trademark infringement. However it is claimed that the aim of reforms made in the related EU regulations is to restrict the rights of trademark owners by taking the interests of third parties and the public into account. Indeed, the function theory adopted by CJEU is not mentioned in Regulation 20171001 and Directive 20152436 on the European Union Trade Mark and non distinctive uses of trademarks by third parties are prioritized. However third parties uses must comply with honest practices in commercial and industrial matters to avoid infringement of the trademark. It is important to determine what honest practices are to ascertain the scope of the trademark right. Some authors claim that honest practices can not be considered in cases where there is a use as a mark, but generally the criteria of use as a mark is insufficient for the determination of honest practices. Especially for non-traditional trademarks, such as color marks or three-dimensional marks, it is very difficult to determine whether the use of a third party is a use as a mark or not. As a matter of fact, it can be understood from CJEU decisions that a broader interpretation is made than the criteria of use as a mark in the determination of honest practices, the court interprets honesty from a broader perspective by taking the interests of trademark owners, third parties and the public into account as well as some empirical elements regarding the issue. Accordingly, even if the use of a third party is a distinctive use, in accordance with the CJEU decisions, that use can remain within the scope of honest practices by evaluating the third partys intention and whether the third party has made any effort to avoid any harm to the trademark. In this respect, this study examines the non-distinctive uses of a registered trademark by third parties within the scope of trademark owners rights and its exceptions based on CJEU decisions.

 Articles 9 and 14 of the Regulation 20171001 on the European Union Trade Mark and articles 10 and 14 of the Directive 20152436 on the European Union Trade Mark regulate the scope of trademark right and its exceptions which are significant for our study Also, article 7 of Industrial Property Code no. 6769 was regulated in line with these regulations. This study examines the uses of registered trademarks by third parties other than for the purposes of indicating origin within the framework of the relevant provisions. There is an opinion in the doctrine defending that the use of a third party should not be in the form of a use as a mark in order to remain within the scope of honest practices. Some court decisions have supported this opinion. On the other hand, in some of its following decisions the Court of Justice of the European Union CJEU expanded the scope of protection granted to trademark owners by providing the right to the owner to prevent the use of the trademark if the use harms not only the origin function, but also the other functions of the trademark such as advertising and communication. This approach adopted by the court is called function theory. Thus, according to relevant decisions, the uses which do not have the purpose of indicating origin may also constitute trademark infringement. However it is claimed that the aim of reforms made in the related EU regulations is to restrict the rights of trademark owners by taking the interests of third parties and the public into account. Indeed, the function theory adopted by CJEU is not mentioned in Regulation 20171001 and Directive 20152436 on the European Union Trade Mark and non distinctive uses of trademarks by third parties are prioritized. However third parties uses must comply with honest practices in commercial and industrial matters to avoid infringement of the trademark. It is important to determine what honest practices are to ascertain the scope of the trademark right. Some authors claim that honest practices can not be considered in cases where there is a use as a mark, but generally the criteria of use as a mark is insufficient for the determination of honest practices. Especially for non-traditional trademarks, such as color marks or three-dimensional marks, it is very difficult to determine whether the use of a third party is a use as a mark or not. As a matter of fact, it can be understood from CJEU decisions that a broader interpretation is made than the criteria of use as a mark in the determination of honest practices, the court interprets honesty from a broader perspective by taking the interests of trademark owners, third parties and the public into account as well as some empirical elements regarding the issue. Accordingly, even if the use of a third party is a distinctive use, in accordance with the CJEU decisions, that use can remain within the scope of honest practices by evaluating the third partys intention and whether the third party has made any effort to avoid any harm to the trademark. In this respect, this study examines the non-distinctive uses of a registered trademark by third parties within the scope of trademark owners rights and its exceptions based on CJEU decisions.

 Articles 9 and 14 of the Regulation 20171001 on the European Union Trade Mark and articles 10 and 14 of the Directive 20152436 on the European Union Trade Mark regulate the scope of trademark right and its exceptions which are significant for our study Also, article 7 of Industrial Property Code no. 6769 was regulated in line with these regulations. This study examines the uses of registered trademarks by third parties other than for the purposes of indicating origin within the framework of the relevant provisions. There is an opinion in the doctrine defending that the use of a third party should not be in the form of a use as a mark in order to remain within the scope of honest practices. Some court decisions have supported this opinion. On the other hand, in some of its following decisions the Court of Justice of the European Union CJEU expanded the scope of protection granted to trademark owners by providing the right to the owner to prevent the use of the trademark if the use harms not only the origin function, but also the other functions of the trademark such as advertising and communication. This approach adopted by the court is called function theory. Thus, according to relevant decisions, the uses which do not have the purpose of indicating origin may also constitute trademark infringement. However it is claimed that the aim of reforms made in the related EU regulations is to restrict the rights of trademark owners by taking the interests of third parties and the public into account. Indeed, the function theory adopted by CJEU is not mentioned in Regulation 20171001 and Directive 20152436 on the European Union Trade Mark and non distinctive uses of trademarks by third parties are prioritized. However third parties uses must comply with honest practices in commercial and industrial matters to avoid infringement of the trademark. It is important to determine what honest practices are to ascertain the scope of the trademark right. Some authors claim that honest practices can not be considered in cases where there is a use as a mark, but generally the criteria of use as a mark is insufficient for the determination of honest practices. Especially for non-traditional trademarks, such as color marks or three-dimensional marks, it is very difficult to determine whether the use of a third party is a use as a mark or not. As a matter of fact, it can be understood from CJEU decisions that a broader interpretation is made than the criteria of use as a mark in the determination of honest practices, the court interprets honesty from a broader perspective by taking the interests of trademark owners, third parties and the public into account as well as some empirical elements regarding the issue. Accordingly, even if the use of a third party is a distinctive use, in accordance with the CJEU decisions, that use can remain within the scope of honest practices by evaluating the third partys intention and whether the third party has made any effort to avoid any harm to the trademark. In this respect, this study examines the non-distinctive uses of a registered trademark by third parties within the scope of trademark owners rights and its exceptions based on CJEU decisions.

 Marka hakkının kapsamı ve istisnalarına ilişkin olarak konumuz açısından önem arz eden düzenlemeler 20171001 sayılı Avrupa Birliği Marka Tüzüğünün 9. ve 14. maddeleri ile 20152436 sayılı Avrupa Birliği Marka Direktifinin 10. ve 14. maddelerinde ve yine bu hükümlere paralel olarak düzenlenen 6769 sayılı Sınai Mülkiyet Kanununun 7. maddesinde yer almaktadır. Çalışmamız açısından önemli olan husus, tescilli markanın üçüncü kişiler tarafından ayırt edici nitelikte olmayan kullanımlarının ilgili madde hükmü çerçevesinde incelenmesidir. Doktrinde marka hakkına tecavüzden söz edilebilmesi için üçüncü kişi tarafından gerçekleştirilen kullanımın markasal kullanım olması gerektiğini savunan bir görüş mevcuttur. Bu görüş birtakım mahkeme kararları ile de desteklenmiştir. Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanının ABAD tecavüzün tespitine yönelik sonraki tarihli kararlarında ise marka sahibine tanınan korumanın genişletildiği ve markanın yalnızca köken gösterme fonksiyonuna değil, aynı zamanda reklam, iletişim gibi diğer fonksiyonlarına da zarar verilmesi halinde üçüncü kişi kullanımlarının marka sahibi tarafından engellenebileceği görülmektedir. Mahkeme tarafından benimsenen bu yaklaşım fonksiyon teorisi olarak adlandırılmaktadır. Bu durumda ilgili kararlar gereği, ayırt edici nitelikte olmayan birtakım kullanımlar da marka hakkına tecavüz fiili oluşturabilmektedir. Bununla beraber, ABde yapılan mevzuat değişiklikleri ile marka sahibinin haklarının üçüncü kişilerin ve genel olarak toplumun menfaatleri de gözetilerek kısıtlanmak istendiği öne sürülmektedir. Gerçekten de 20171001 sayılı AB Marka Tüzüğü ve 20152436 sayılı AB Marka Direktifinde ABAD tarafından benimsenen fonksiyon teorisinin mevzuata alınmadığı ve tescilli markaların üçüncü kişiler tarafından ayırt edici nitelikte olmayan kullanımlarında, üçüncü kişilerin ihtiyaçlarına daha fazla önem verildiği görülmektedir. Lakin üçüncü kişi kullanımlarının tecavüz niteliği taşımaması için bunların ticari ve sınai konulardaki dürüst uygulamalara uygun olması gerekir. Dürüst uygulamaların tespiti de marka hakkının kapsamını belirleme açısından oldukça önemlidir. Birtakım yazarlar markasal kullanımın bulunduğu durumlarda dürüst uygulamalardan söz edilemeyeceğini öne sürmektedir; fakat markasal kullanım ölçütü çoğu zaman dürüst uygulamaların tespiti açısından yetersiz kalmaktadır. Özellikle de geleneksel olmayan marka türlerinden olan renk markaları ve üç boyutlu markalar gibi markalarda üçüncü kişi kullanımlarının markasal bir kullanım olup olmadığını tespit etmek oldukça güçtür. Nitekim ABAD kararlarına bakıldığında da dürüst uygulamaların tespiti açısından markasal kullanım ölçütünden daha geniş yorum yapıldığı, burada marka hakkı sahibinin menfaatlerinin yanı sıra üçüncü kişilerin ve kamu menfaatinin de dikkate alınarak geniş bir bakış açısı ile hareket edildiği ve konuya ilişkin somut birtakım verilerin de dikkate alındığı görülmektedir. Buna göre, üçüncü kişi kullanımı ayırt edici nitelikte olsa dahi ABAD kararları gereği, üçüncü kişinin niyeti ve markaya zarar vermemek için herhangi bir çaba gösterip göstermediği de dikkate alınarak kullanımı yine dürüst kullanım kapsamında kalabilecektir. Bu sebeplerle çalışmada, ABAD kararları esas alınarak, tescilli bir markanın üçüncü kişiler tarafından ayırt edici nitelikte olmayan kullanımları marka hakkının kapsamı ve istisnaları çerçevesinde incelenmiştir.

Makale detayları

EXAMINATION OF THE NON-DISTINCTIVE USES OF REGISTERED TRADEMARKS BY THIRD PARTIES WITHIN THE SCOPE OF TRADEMARK RIGHT AND ITS EXCEPTIONS IN THE LIGHT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF EUROPEAN UNION

Yazarlar:

Başak Karmutoğlu

Yayıncı:

Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University

Ana Başlıklar:

Hukuk (Diğer)

Dergi:

Ticaret ve Fikri Mülkiyet Hukuku Dergisi Vol.10 Issue 1, pp.119-138

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001323205

pISSN:

2149-4576

trademark infringement

fair use

trademark use

function theory

scope of trademark rightmarka hakkına tecavüz

dürüst kullanım

markanın kullanımı

fonksiyon teorisi

marka hakkının kapsamı

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Başak Karmutoğlu

Yayıncı: Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University

Ana Başlıklar: Hukuk (Diğer)

Dergi: Ticaret ve Fikri Mülkiyet Hukuku Dergisi Vol.10 Issue 1, pp.119-138

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 6/2024

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001323205

pISSN: 2149-4576

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Başak Karmutoğlu

Yayıncı:

Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University

Ana Başlıklar:

Hukuk (Diğer)

Dergi:

Ticaret ve Fikri Mülkiyet Hukuku Dergisi Vol.10 Issue 1, pp.119-138

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001323205

pISSN:

2149-4576