T.C.
\nYARGITAY
\n11. HUKUK DA\u0130RES\u0130
\nE. 2023\/4401
\nK. 2024\/6851
\nT. 26.9.2024<\/p>\n
Y\u0130DK MARKA KARARI \u0130PTAL\u0130 VE MARKA H\u00dcK\u00dcMS\u00dcZL\u00dc\u011e\u00dc \u0130STEM\u0130 ( Taraf Markalar\u0131n\u0131n Genel G\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcm ve B\u0131rakt\u0131klar\u0131 B\u00fct\u00fcnsel \u0130zlenimin Farkl\u0131 Oldu\u011fu\/Ortalama T\u00fcketici Kitlesinin Genel Bak\u0131\u015f A\u00e7\u0131s\u0131 Nazara Al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda Daval\u0131n\u0131n Ba\u015fvurusunun Davac\u0131n\u0131n Markalar\u0131n\u0131 Akla Getirmeyece\u011fi ve Kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lma \u0130htimalinin Bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n Kabul\u00fcyle Yerinde Bulunan Y\u0130DK Karar\u0131n\u0131n \u0130ptali Davas\u0131 Bak\u0131m\u0131ndan Davan\u0131n Reddine Karar Verilmesi Gerekti\u011finden H\u00fckm\u00fcn Bozulmas\u0131 Gere\u011fi )<\/p>\n
B\u00dcT\u00dcNSEL \u0130NCELEME ( Davac\u0131n\u0131n Markalar\u0131 Kavisli Bir “C” Harfi ve Yine Ayn\u0131 Kavisleri \u0130\u00e7eren “Coca Cola” Esas Unsurlu \u0130ken Daval\u0131n\u0131n Ba\u015fvurusunun \u201cHalam Ev Yemekleri ve Mant\u0131\u201d \u0130bareli Oldu\u011fu – Kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lma \u0130htimalinin Tespitinde Davac\u0131n\u0131n \u0130tiraz Gerek\u00e7esi Markalar\u0131ndaki Kavisli C \u0130baresinin Daval\u0131 Ba\u015fvurusundaki Kelimelerin \u0130\u00e7erisinden Bir Harf \u00c7ekilmek Suretiyle Benzer G\u00f6r\u00fclmesinin B\u00fct\u00fcnsel \u0130nceleme Kural\u0131na Ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k Te\u015fkil Edece\u011fi\/Taraf Markalar\u0131n\u0131n G\u00f6rsel \u0130\u015fitsel ve Anlamsal Olarak Farkl\u0131 Oldu\u011fu Nazara Al\u0131narak Davan\u0131n Reddine Karar Verilmesi Gere\u011fi )<\/p>\n
TARAF MARKALARININ G\u00d6RSEL \u0130\u015e\u0130TSEL VE ANLAMSAL OLARAK FARKLI OLMASI ( Y\u0130DK Marka Karar\u0131 \u0130ptali ve Marka H\u00fck\u00fcms\u00fczl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc \u0130stemi – Taraf Markalar\u0131n\u0131n Genel G\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcm ve B\u0131rakt\u0131klar\u0131 B\u00fct\u00fcnsel \u0130zlenimin Farkl\u0131 Oldu\u011fu\/Ortalama T\u00fcketici Kitlesinin Genel Bak\u0131\u015f A\u00e7\u0131s\u0131 Nazara Al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda Daval\u0131n\u0131n Ba\u015fvurusunun Davac\u0131n\u0131n Markalar\u0131n\u0131 Akla Getirmeyece\u011fi Ayn\u0131 veya Aralar\u0131nda Ba\u011flant\u0131 Bulunan \u0130\u015fletmeden Kaynakland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 D\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnd\u00fcrmeyece\u011finin Kabul\u00fcyle Davan\u0131n Reddine Karar Verilmesi Gerekti\u011fi )<\/p>\n
6769\/m.6<\/p>\n
\u00d6ZET: Dava, Y\u0130DK marka karar\u0131 iptali ve marka h\u00fck\u00fcms\u00fczl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc istemine ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
Davac\u0131n\u0131n markalar\u0131 kavisli bir “C” harfi ve yine ayn\u0131 kavisleri i\u00e7eren “coca-cola” esas unsurlu iken daval\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvurusu \u201cHalam ev yemekleri ve mant\u0131\u201d ibarelidir. Kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lma ihtimalinin tespitinde, davac\u0131n\u0131n itiraz gerek\u00e7esi markalar\u0131ndaki kavisli C ibaresinin, daval\u0131 ba\u015fvurusundaki kelimelerin i\u00e7erisinden bir harf \u00e7ekilmek suretiyle benzer g\u00f6r\u00fclmesinin b\u00fct\u00fcnsel inceleme kural\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k te\u015fkil edece\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131k olup, davac\u0131n\u0131n mesnet ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 bu C ibaresini ayr\u0131ca marka olarak tescilinin de durumu de\u011fi\u015ftirmeyece\u011fi kabul edilmelidir. Bu itibarla taraf markalar\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6rsel, i\u015fitsel ve anlamsal olarak farkl\u0131 oldu\u011fu, genel g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcm ve b\u0131rakt\u0131klar\u0131 b\u00fct\u00fcnsel izlenimin farkl\u0131 oldu\u011fu, ortalama t\u00fcketici kitlesinin genel bak\u0131\u015f a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131 nazara al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, daval\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvurusunun davac\u0131n\u0131n markalar\u0131n\u0131 akla getirmeyece\u011fi, ayn\u0131 veya aralar\u0131nda ba\u011flant\u0131 bulunan i\u015fletmeden kaynakland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnd\u00fcrmeyece\u011fi ve farkl\u0131 markalar oldu\u011funun ay\u0131rt edilebilece\u011fi dikkate al\u0131narak kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lma ihtimalinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fcyle yerinde bulunan Y\u0130DK karar\u0131n\u0131n iptali davas\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesi gerekti\u011finden h\u00fckm\u00fcn bozulmas\u0131 gerekmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
DAVA : B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi karar\u0131 daval\u0131 kurum vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmekle; temyiz \u015fart\u0131 ve di\u011fer usul eksiklikleri y\u00f6n\u00fcnden yap\u0131lan \u00f6n inceleme sonucunda, temyiz dilek\u00e7esinin kabul\u00fcne karar verildikten ve Tetkik H\u00e2kimi taraf\u0131ndan haz\u0131rlanan rapor dinlendikten sonra dosyadaki belgeler incelenip gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc:<\/p>\n
KARAR : KARAR<\/p>\n
I. DAVA<\/p>\n
Davac\u0131 vekili dava dilek\u00e7esinde; daval\u0131n\u0131n 2017\/86656 numaral\u0131 \u201cHALAM ev yemekleri ve mant\u0131\u201d ibareli marka ba\u015fvurusuna yapt\u0131klar\u0131 itiraz\u0131n daval\u0131 … Yeniden \u0130nceleme ve De\u011ferlendirme Kurulunun (Y\u0130DK) karar\u0131yla nihai olarak reddedildi\u011fini, oysa marka ba\u015fvurusunun m\u00fcvekkili \u015firket ad\u0131na tescilli ve tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015f markalar ile tertip tarz\u0131 olarak ay\u0131rt edilemeyecek kadar benzer oldu\u011funu, ba\u015fvurunun tescili halinde halk nezdinde iltibasa neden olaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131, markay\u0131 g\u00f6ren t\u00fcketicinin m\u00fcvekkiline ait tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015f markalar ile ba\u011f kuraca\u011f\u0131n\u0131, markan\u0131n ayn\u0131 t\u00fcr mal\/hizmetler i\u00e7in tescil edilmek istendi\u011fini, m\u00fcvekkili \u015firket ad\u0131na tescilli 2013\/26004 Say\u0131l\u0131 “\u015fekil” markas\u0131n\u0131n stilinin daval\u0131 ba\u015fvurusunda kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve bu anlamda iltibas\u0131n do\u011fdu\u011funu, dava konusu marka ba\u015fvurusu dikkat \u00e7eken unsurunun kelime unsuru de\u011fil m\u00fcvekkilinin ikonik k\u0131rm\u0131z\u0131 rengi ve y\u0131llard\u0131r de\u011fi\u015ftirmeden kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 stilize kuyruklu C harfi oldu\u011funu, bu durumun markalar aras\u0131nda ay\u0131rt edilemeyecek bir benzerlik yaratt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, s\u00f6z konusu renk ve bi\u00e7im se\u00e7iminin, m\u00fcvekkilinin y\u0131llard\u0131r d\u00fcnya \u00e7ap\u0131nda sat\u0131\u015fta olan, t\u00fcketici nezdinde eri\u015fti\u011fi bilinirlik g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda tesad\u00fcf olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ba\u015fvuru kapsam\u0131ndaki 43. s\u0131n\u0131f \u201cYiyecek ve i\u00e7ecek sa\u011flanmas\u0131 hizmetleri.\u201d nin m\u00fcvekkilinin y\u0131llard\u0131r faaliyet g\u00f6sterdi\u011fi sekt\u00f6rle ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 oldu\u011funu, daval\u0131 tarafa ait marka ba\u015fvurusunun haks\u0131z rekabet de olu\u015fturdu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrerek Y\u0130DK’n\u0131n 2019-M-6906 Say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n iptali ile 2017\/86656 ba\u015fvuru numaral\u0131 markan\u0131n h\u00fck\u00fcms\u00fczl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. CEVAP<\/p>\n
1.Daval\u0131 … vekili cevap dilek\u00e7esi; m\u00fcvekkili kurum karar\u0131n\u0131n usul ve yasaya uygun oldu\u011funu savunarak davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesini istemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
2.Di\u011fer daval\u0131 cevap dilek\u00e7esinde; itiraza mesnet marka ile ba\u015fvurusu aras\u0131nda iltibasa neden olacak d\u00fczeyde benzerli\u011fin mevcut olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, Y\u0130DK karar\u0131n\u0131n yerinde oldu\u011funu, davac\u0131 \u015firketin tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015f markalar\u0131n\u0131n i\u00e7ecek i\u00e7in kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kendisine ait markan\u0131n ise Nazilli il\u00e7esinde yer alan ev yemekleri, mant\u0131 ve baklava \u00fcretilen salon i\u00e7in kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu sebeple markan\u0131n halk taraf\u0131ndan tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015f marka ile ili\u015fkilendirme ihtimalinin olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131 \u015firketin tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan haks\u0131z yarar sa\u011flama ihtimalinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131 \u015firketin markas\u0131n\u0131n k\u0131rm\u0131z\u0131 renk olmas\u0131n\u0131n s\u00f6z konusu markan\u0131n tesciline engel olmamas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini, zira yiyecek sekt\u00f6r\u00fcnde k\u0131rm\u0131z\u0131 rengin i\u015ftah a\u00e7\u0131c\u0131 renk olarak kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu ba\u011flamda sekt\u00f6rde bir\u00e7ok markan\u0131n k\u0131rm\u0131z\u0131 renkte oldu\u011funu, markalar\u0131n bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekti\u011fini, ba\u015fvurunun k\u00f6t\u00fc niyetli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 savunarak davan\u0131n reddini istemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
III. \u0130LK DERECE MAHKEMES\u0130 KARARI<\/p>\n
\u0130lk Derece Mahkemesince, “Halam” ibareli dava konusu marka ile itiraza mesnet 2013\/23449 Say\u0131l\u0131 “Coca-Cola zero”, 2010\/00124 Say\u0131l\u0131 “Coca-Cola”, 2003\/01603 Say\u0131l\u0131 “Coca-Cola”, 101119 Say\u0131l\u0131 “Coca-Cola”, 92397 Say\u0131l\u0131 “Coca-Cola light”, 90248 Say\u0131l\u0131 “Coca-Cola”, 2000\/22512 Say\u0131l\u0131 “Coca-Cola”, 2013\/23450 Say\u0131l\u0131 “Coca-Cola light”, 1411331 Say\u0131l\u0131 “Coca-Cola”, 143879 Say\u0131l\u0131 “Always Coca-Cola” ve 71737 Say\u0131l\u0131 “Coca-Cola” markalar\u0131 aras\u0131nda g\u00f6rsel olarak iltibas tehlikesi olu\u015fturacak derecede benzerlik bulundu\u011fu, davac\u0131 markas\u0131n\u0131n dar ve s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 bir \u00e7evrede de\u011fil, herkes\u00e7e tan\u0131n\u0131p bilindi\u011finin m\u00fctalaa edilebilece\u011fi, “Coca-Cola” markas\u0131n\u0131n uzun y\u0131llardan bu yana kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, ay\u0131rt edicili\u011finin g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fc oldu\u011fu, kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc yaz\u0131m stili ile de yayg\u0131n olarak kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve bilindi\u011fi, bu yaz\u0131m stilinde “Coca” kelimesinin ba\u015f\u0131ndaki “C” harfinin sa\u011f alt kuyru\u011funun uzat\u0131larak g\u00f6rsel anlamda ay\u0131rt edicilik olu\u015fturuldu\u011fu, “Halam” markas\u0131 ile stilize “Coca-Cola” markas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda; her iki markan\u0131n benzer yaz\u0131m stili ile olu\u015fturuldu\u011fu, bu hale g\u00f6re davac\u0131ya ait stilize yaz\u0131lm\u0131\u015f “Coca-Cola” ibareli tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015f markalar\u0131n\u0131 bilen, bu yaz\u0131m stilini davac\u0131 markalar\u0131 ile \u00f6zde\u015fle\u015ftiren makul derecede bilgili, dikkatli ve ihtiyatl\u0131 ortalama t\u00fcketici kesiminin, davaya konu “Halam” markas\u0131n\u0131 “Yiyecek ve i\u00e7ecek sa\u011flanmas\u0131 hizmetleri” \u00fczerinde g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde, tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015f me\u015frubat markas\u0131 olan “Coca-Cola” n\u0131n marka sahibinin ya bizzat kendisi ya da lisans verdi\u011fi daval\u0131 \u015fahs\u0131n “Halam” markas\u0131 ile ticari faaliyette bulundu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcnde yan\u0131lsamaya d\u00fc\u015fece\u011fi, davaya konu hizmetin \u00f6zellikle g\u00f6rsel alg\u0131 ile se\u00e7ilip yararlan\u0131labilen, tercih yapmak i\u00e7in detayl\u0131 ara\u015ft\u0131rma gerektirmeyen, di\u011fer mal ve hizmetlere g\u00f6re ucuz ve s\u0131radan bir hizmet t\u00fcr\u00fc oldu\u011fu dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, markalar\u0131n yaz\u0131m stilindeki benzerliklerinden kaynakl\u0131 g\u00f6rsel izlenimin iltibas tehlikesini tek ba\u015f\u0131na olu\u015fturaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n s\u00f6ylenebilece\u011fi, davac\u0131 markas\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015fl\u0131k derecesinin y\u00fcksek olmas\u0131n\u0131n iltibas tehlikesini artt\u0131ran ba\u015fkaca bir unsur oldu\u011fu, “Cola-Cola” markas\u0131n\u0131n zihninde yer eden olumlu imaj\u0131 ile hareket eden ortalama t\u00fcketicinin “Halam” ibareli stilize markay\u0131 g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde zihnindeki bu olumlu imaj\u0131 “Halam” markas\u0131na atfetme ve b\u00f6ylece bu markal\u0131 hizmetlerden yararlanma y\u00f6n\u00fcnde davran\u0131\u015fta bulunabilece\u011fi, bu durumun davac\u0131 markalar\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan daval\u0131n\u0131n haks\u0131z yere yararlanmas\u0131 neticesini do\u011furaca\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan gerek SMK’n\u0131n 6\/1, gerekse 6\/4 ve 6\/5 maddesi h\u00fckm\u00fc ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n somut olayda olu\u015ftu\u011fu, davaya konu marka ile itiraza mesnet markalar\u0131n iltibas tehlikesi olu\u015fturacak derecede benzer olmalar\u0131n\u0131n haricinde daval\u0131 \u015fahs\u0131n k\u00f6t\u00fcniyetle hareket etti\u011fini g\u00f6sterir somut olgu ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclmedi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n kabul\u00fc ile, 2019-M-6906 Say\u0131l\u0131 Y\u0130DK karar\u0131n\u0131n iptaline, dava konusu marka tescil edilmedi\u011finden h\u00fck\u00fcms\u00fczl\u00fck talebi hakk\u0131nda karar verilmesine yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar verilmi\u015f, h\u00fck\u00fcm daval\u0131 Kurum vekilince istinaf edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
IV. B\u00d6LGE ADL\u0130YE MAHKEMES\u0130 KARARI<\/p>\n
B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince, mahkemenin vak\u0131a ve hukuki de\u011ferlendirmesinde usul ve esas y\u00f6n\u00fcnden yasaya ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, daval\u0131n\u0131n “HALAM ev yemekleri ve mant\u0131\u201d ibareli marka ba\u015fvurusu ile davac\u0131n\u0131n itiraz\u0131na mesnet \u015fekil ihtiva eden markalar\u0131 aras\u0131nda, bi\u00e7im, d\u00fczenleme ve tertip tarz\u0131 itibariyle g\u00f6rsel olarak ortalama t\u00fcketicileri iltibasa d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcrecek derecede bir benzerlik bulundu\u011fu, davac\u0131n\u0131n 2013\/26004 Say\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekil markas\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvuruda aynen yer ald\u0131\u011f\u0131, i\u015fin uzman\u0131 yahut dikkatli ki\u015filerden olu\u015fmayan, mak\u00fbl d\u00fczeyde bilgilendirilmi\u015f, marka ve ba\u015fvuru konusu i\u015fareti ayn\u0131 anda g\u00f6r\u00fcp detaylar\u0131n\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131rma olana\u011f\u0131 bulunmayan, daha \u00f6nce g\u00f6r\u00fcp yararland\u0131\u011f\u0131 markan\u0131n a\u015fa\u011f\u0131 yukar\u0131 net an\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n tesirinde olan ortalama d\u00fczeydeki al\u0131c\u0131 kitlesinin, daval\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvuru markas\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde taraf markalar\u0131 aras\u0131nda i\u015fletmesel ba\u011flant\u0131 oldu\u011fu ya da idari ve ekonomik a\u00e7\u0131dan birbiriyle ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 i\u015fletme taraf\u0131ndan piyasaya sunulan markal\u0131 mallar alg\u0131s\u0131 olu\u015fabilece\u011fi, davac\u0131 markalar\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015fl\u0131k d\u00fczeyinin somut uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k y\u00f6n\u00fcnden iltibas tehlikesini art\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131, taraf markalar\u0131 aras\u0131na SMK’n\u0131n 6\/1. maddesi anlam\u0131nda iltibas ko\u015fulunun olu\u015ftu\u011fu, uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011fa konu mal ve hizmetler konusunda uzman bilirki\u015filer taraf\u0131ndan haz\u0131rlanm\u0131\u015f denetime ve h\u00fck\u00fcm kurmaya elveri\u015fli rapor esas al\u0131narak yerel mahkeme karar\u0131nda tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015fl\u0131\u011fa dair yap\u0131lan de\u011ferlendirmelerde bir isabetsizlik bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, k\u00f6t\u00fc niyetin ispatlanamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle daval\u0131 Kurum vekilinin istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun esastan reddine karar verilmi\u015f, karar daval\u0131 Kurum vekilince temyiz edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
V. TEMY\u0130Z \u0130NCELEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k ve Hukuki Nitelendirme<\/p>\n
Dava, Y\u0130DK marka karar\u0131 iptali ve marka h\u00fck\u00fcms\u00fczl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc istemine ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. \u0130lgili Hukuk<\/p>\n
1.6100 Say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nun 369. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 ile 370 ve 371. maddeleri.<\/p>\n
2.6769 Say\u0131l\u0131 S\u0131nai M\u00fclkiyet Kanunu’nun 6. maddesi.<\/p>\n
3. De\u011ferlendirme<\/p>\n
6769 Say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 6. maddesi uyar\u0131nca, tescil i\u00e7in ba\u015fvurusu yap\u0131lan marka, tescil edilmi\u015f veya tescili i\u00e7in daha \u00f6nce ba\u015fvurusu yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f bir marka ile ayn\u0131 veya benzer ise ve tescil edilmi\u015f veya tescili i\u00e7in ba\u015fvurusu yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f bir markan\u0131n kapsad\u0131\u011f\u0131 mal ve hizmetlerle ayn\u0131 veya benzer ise tescil edilmi\u015f veya tescili i\u00e7in ba\u015fvurusu yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f markan\u0131n halk taraf\u0131ndan kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lma ihtimali varsa ve bu kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131rma ihtimali tescil edilmi\u015f veya tescil i\u00e7in ba\u015fvurusu yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f bir marka ile ili\u015fkili oldu\u011fu ihtimalini de kaps\u0131yorsa, marka sahibinin tescile itiraz\u0131 \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurunun reddine karar verilir. Kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lma ihtimalinin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilirken, markalar\u0131n birbirlerine olan g\u00f6rsel, sescil ve kavramsal benzerlikleri b\u00fct\u00fcnsel inceleme prensibi dikkate al\u0131narak yap\u0131l\u0131r. Bir ba\u015fka deyi\u015fle her iki markan\u0131n b\u00fct\u00fcnen ak\u0131lda b\u0131rakt\u0131\u011f\u0131 izlenim esas al\u0131nmal\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Somut uyu\u015fmazl\u0131kta davac\u0131n\u0131n markalar\u0131 kavisli bir “C” harfi ve yine ayn\u0131 kavisleri i\u00e7eren “coca-cola” esas unsurlu iken daval\u0131 …’in ba\u015fvurusu \u201cHalam ev yemekleri ve mant\u0131\u201d ibarelidir. Kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lma ihtimalinin tespitinde, davac\u0131n\u0131n itiraz gerek\u00e7esi markalar\u0131ndaki kavisli C ibaresinin, daval\u0131 ba\u015fvurusundaki kelimelerin i\u00e7erisinden bir harf \u00e7ekilmek suretiyle benzer g\u00f6r\u00fclmesinin b\u00fct\u00fcnsel inceleme kural\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k te\u015fkil edece\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131k olup, davac\u0131n\u0131n mesnet ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 bu C ibaresini ayr\u0131ca marka olarak tescilinin de durumu de\u011fi\u015ftirmeyece\u011fi kabul edilmelidir. Bu itibarla taraf markalar\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6rsel, i\u015fitsel ve anlamsal olarak farkl\u0131 oldu\u011fu, genel g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcm ve b\u0131rakt\u0131klar\u0131 b\u00fct\u00fcnsel izlenimin farkl\u0131 oldu\u011fu, ortalama t\u00fcketici kitlesinin genel bak\u0131\u015f a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131 nazara al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, daval\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvurusunun davac\u0131n\u0131n markalar\u0131n\u0131 akla getirmeyece\u011fi, ayn\u0131 veya aralar\u0131nda ba\u011flant\u0131 bulunan i\u015fletmeden kaynakland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnd\u00fcrmeyece\u011fi ve farkl\u0131 markalar oldu\u011funun ay\u0131rt edilebilece\u011fi dikkate al\u0131narak kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lma ihtimalinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fcyle yerinde bulunan Y\u0130DK karar\u0131n\u0131n iptali davas\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesi gerekti\u011finden h\u00fckm\u00fcn temyiz eden T\u00dcRKPATENT lehine bozulmas\u0131 gerekmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
SONU\u00c7 : Yukar\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle, daval\u0131n\u0131n T\u00dcRKPATENT vekilinin temyiz isteminin kabul\u00fcyle \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesince verilen karara y\u00f6nelik istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun esastan reddine ili\u015fkin B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n BOZULARAK KALDIRILMASINA, 6100 Say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 373. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca dava dosyas\u0131n\u0131n \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesine, karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesine g\u00f6nderilmesine, pe\u015fin al\u0131nan temyiz karar harc\u0131n\u0131n istek halinde ilgiliye iadesine, 26.09.2024 tarihinde oy \u00e7oklu\u011fuyla karar verildi.<\/p>\n
KAR\u015eI OY<\/p>\n
Yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama ve saptanan somut uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k bak\u0131m\u0131ndan uygulanmas\u0131 gereken hukuk kurallar\u0131 g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesince verilen kararda bir isabetsizlik olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n anla\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131na ve yap\u0131lan istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun 6100 Say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 353. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (b) bendinin (1) numaral\u0131 alt bendi uyar\u0131nca B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince esastan reddine ili\u015fkin karar\u0131n usul ve yasaya uygun oldu\u011fundan B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n onanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011finden aksi y\u00f6ndeki \u00e7o\u011funluk bozma gerek\u00e7esine kat\u0131lm\u0131yoruz.<\/p>\n
kazanci.com<\/p>\n
\u200bTaraf Markalar\u0131n\u0131n Genel G\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcm ve B\u0131rakt\u0131klar\u0131 B\u00fct\u00fcnsel \u0130zlenimin Farkl\u0131 Oldu\u011fu\/Ortalama T\u00fcketici Kitlesinin Genel Bak\u0131\u015f A\u00e7\u0131s\u0131 Nazara Al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda Daval\u0131n\u0131n Ba\u015fvurusunun Davac\u0131n\u0131n Markalar\u0131n\u0131 Akla Getirmeyece\u011fi ve Kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lma \u0130htimalinin Bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n Kabul\u00fcyle Yerinde Bulunan Y\u0130DK Karar\u0131n\u0131n \u0130ptali Davas\u0131 Bak\u0131m\u0131ndan Davan\u0131n Reddine Karar Verilmesi Gerekti\u011finden H\u00fckm\u00fcn Bozulmas\u0131 Gere\u011fi\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/p>\n
Haberin Al\u0131nt\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kaynak: www.hukukihaber.net<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T.C. YARGITAY 11. HUKUK DA\u0130RES\u0130 E. 2023\/4401 K. 2024\/6851 T. 26.9.2024 Y\u0130DK MARKA KARARI \u0130PTAL\u0130 VE MARKA H\u00dcK\u00dcMS\u00dcZL\u00dc\u011e\u00dc \u0130STEM\u0130 ( Taraf Markalar\u0131n\u0131n Genel G\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcm ve B\u0131rakt\u0131klar\u0131 B\u00fct\u00fcnsel \u0130zlenimin Farkl\u0131 Oldu\u011fu\/Ortalama T\u00fcketici Kitlesinin Genel Bak\u0131\u015f A\u00e7\u0131s\u0131 Nazara Al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda Daval\u0131n\u0131n Ba\u015fvurusunun Davac\u0131n\u0131n Markalar\u0131n\u0131 Akla Getirmeyece\u011fi ve Kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lma \u0130htimalinin Bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n Kabul\u00fcyle Yerinde Bulunan Y\u0130DK Karar\u0131n\u0131n \u0130ptali Davas\u0131 Bak\u0131m\u0131ndan Davan\u0131n Reddine Karar Verilmesi Gerekti\u011finden H\u00fckm\u00fcn Bozulmas\u0131 Gere\u011fi ) B\u00dcT\u00dcNSEL \u0130NCELEME ( Davac\u0131n\u0131n Markalar\u0131 Kavisli Bir “C” Harfi ve Yine Ayn\u0131 Kavisleri \u0130\u00e7eren “Coca Cola” Esas Unsurlu \u0130ken Daval\u0131n\u0131n Ba\u015fvurusunun \u201cHalam Ev Yemekleri ve Mant\u0131\u201d \u0130bareli Oldu\u011fu – Kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lma \u0130htimalinin Tespitinde Davac\u0131n\u0131n \u0130tiraz Gerek\u00e7esi Markalar\u0131ndaki Kavisli C \u0130baresinin Daval\u0131 Ba\u015fvurusundaki Kelimelerin \u0130\u00e7erisinden Bir Harf \u00c7ekilmek Suretiyle Benzer G\u00f6r\u00fclmesinin B\u00fct\u00fcnsel \u0130nceleme Kural\u0131na Ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k Te\u015fkil Edece\u011fi\/Taraf Markalar\u0131n\u0131n G\u00f6rsel \u0130\u015fitsel ve Anlamsal Olarak Farkl\u0131 Oldu\u011fu Nazara Al\u0131narak Davan\u0131n Reddine Karar Verilmesi Gere\u011fi ) TARAF MARKALARININ G\u00d6RSEL \u0130\u015e\u0130TSEL VE ANLAMSAL OLARAK FARKLI OLMASI ( Y\u0130DK Marka Karar\u0131 \u0130ptali ve Marka H\u00fck\u00fcms\u00fczl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc \u0130stemi – Taraf Markalar\u0131n\u0131n Genel G\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcm ve B\u0131rakt\u0131klar\u0131 B\u00fct\u00fcnsel \u0130zlenimin Farkl\u0131 Oldu\u011fu\/Ortalama T\u00fcketici Kitlesinin Genel Bak\u0131\u015f A\u00e7\u0131s\u0131 Nazara Al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda Daval\u0131n\u0131n Ba\u015fvurusunun Davac\u0131n\u0131n Markalar\u0131n\u0131 Akla Getirmeyece\u011fi Ayn\u0131 veya Aralar\u0131nda Ba\u011flant\u0131 Bulunan \u0130\u015fletmeden Kaynakland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 D\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnd\u00fcrmeyece\u011finin Kabul\u00fcyle Davan\u0131n Reddine Karar Verilmesi Gerekti\u011fi ) 6769\/m.6 \u00d6ZET: Dava, Y\u0130DK marka karar\u0131 iptali ve …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-33138","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n