YARGITAY KARARLARI IŞIĞINDA COĞRAFÎ MARKALAR
According to Industrial Property Code (IPC), trademarks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the geographical origin of the goods or services, shall not be registered. Also trademarks which are of such a nature as to deceive the public, as to the...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | deu |
| Published: |
Inonu University
2018-12-01
|
| Series: | İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/inuhfd/issue/38129/447548 |
| _version_ | 1797922116589322240 |
|---|---|
| author | Burçak YILDIZ |
| author_facet | Burçak YILDIZ |
| author_sort | Burçak YILDIZ |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | According to Industrial Property Code (IPC), trademarks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the geographical origin of the goods or services, shall not be registered. Also trademarks which are of such a nature as to deceive the public, as to the geographical origin of the goods or service shall not be registered as well. Such absolute grounds for refusal or invalidity have been patterned especially on jurisprudence. In this article, the absolute grounds for refusal or invalidity regarding geographical trademarks are examined in light of jurisprudence of Turkish Court of Appeal.
Whether a trademark designates the geographical origin of the goods/services or deceives the public as to the geographical origin of the goods/service is determined according to the perception of the relevant class of persons. IPC Art. 5.1c or Art. 5.1f shall be applied where the relevant class of persons percepts the geographical place in the trademark as the place of manufacture of the goods/service. If this place is the actual place of manufacture, IPC Art. 5.1c shall be applied and if not, IPC Art. 5.1.f shall be applied.
In Pendik Judgment, the Court of Appeal has given the decision that the geographical names can not be registered as trademarks unless they are part of a noun phrase. This approach, which has later been ingrained, is inaccurate. IPC already prevents the registration of geographical trademarks where such registration will be considered harmful for the relevant class of persons or competitors. In this respect, the restrictive approach of the High Court is both unnecessary and groundless in terms of IPC. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-10T14:26:08Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-6a7cc3c5cc034865a7b62b260a088788 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2146-1082 2667-5714 |
| language | deu |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-10T14:26:08Z |
| publishDate | 2018-12-01 |
| publisher | Inonu University |
| record_format | Article |
| series | İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi |
| spelling | doaj.art-6a7cc3c5cc034865a7b62b260a0887882023-02-15T16:09:03ZdeuInonu Universityİnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi2146-10822667-57142018-12-0192125156https://doi.org/10.21492/inuhfd.447548YARGITAY KARARLARI IŞIĞINDA COĞRAFÎ MARKALARBurçak YILDIZhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-8792-995XAccording to Industrial Property Code (IPC), trademarks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the geographical origin of the goods or services, shall not be registered. Also trademarks which are of such a nature as to deceive the public, as to the geographical origin of the goods or service shall not be registered as well. Such absolute grounds for refusal or invalidity have been patterned especially on jurisprudence. In this article, the absolute grounds for refusal or invalidity regarding geographical trademarks are examined in light of jurisprudence of Turkish Court of Appeal. Whether a trademark designates the geographical origin of the goods/services or deceives the public as to the geographical origin of the goods/service is determined according to the perception of the relevant class of persons. IPC Art. 5.1c or Art. 5.1f shall be applied where the relevant class of persons percepts the geographical place in the trademark as the place of manufacture of the goods/service. If this place is the actual place of manufacture, IPC Art. 5.1c shall be applied and if not, IPC Art. 5.1.f shall be applied. In Pendik Judgment, the Court of Appeal has given the decision that the geographical names can not be registered as trademarks unless they are part of a noun phrase. This approach, which has later been ingrained, is inaccurate. IPC already prevents the registration of geographical trademarks where such registration will be considered harmful for the relevant class of persons or competitors. In this respect, the restrictive approach of the High Court is both unnecessary and groundless in terms of IPC.https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/inuhfd/issue/38129/447548trademarkgeographical trademarkmisleading trademark. |
| spellingShingle | Burçak YILDIZ YARGITAY KARARLARI IŞIĞINDA COĞRAFÎ MARKALAR İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi trademark geographical trademark misleading trademark. |
| title | YARGITAY KARARLARI IŞIĞINDA COĞRAFÎ MARKALAR |
| title_full | YARGITAY KARARLARI IŞIĞINDA COĞRAFÎ MARKALAR |
| title_fullStr | YARGITAY KARARLARI IŞIĞINDA COĞRAFÎ MARKALAR |
| title_full_unstemmed | YARGITAY KARARLARI IŞIĞINDA COĞRAFÎ MARKALAR |
| title_short | YARGITAY KARARLARI IŞIĞINDA COĞRAFÎ MARKALAR |
| title_sort | yargitay kararlari isiginda cografi markalar |
| topic | trademark geographical trademark misleading trademark. |
| url | https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/inuhfd/issue/38129/447548 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT burcakyildiz yargitaykararlariisigindacografimarkalar |