Publication: TTK’daki “iltibas” ile 556 S. KHK’deki “karşılaştırılma ihtimali” kavramlarının karşılaştırılması
Abstract
Liberal ve karma ekonomilerin temeli olan ticari rekabetin; verim artırıcı, üretilen mal ve hizmetlerin kalitesini artırıcı ve fiyatları düşürücü fonksiyonları vardır. Bu yönleri ile faydalı bir müessese olan rekabet, dürüstlük kuralları çerçevesinde olmalı ve kötüye kullanılmamalıdır. Ülkemizde Haksız Rekabet Hukukunu düzenleyen müstakil bir düzenleme söz konusu değildir. Türk Hukukunda Haksız Rekabet kurumu, temel olarak Türk Ticaret Kanunu’nun 56 ile 65. maddeleri arasında düzenlenmiştir. İltibas, bir kişinin, başkasının emtiası, iş mahsulleri, faaliyeti veya ticari işletmesiyle ilgili benzerlik yaratacak karışıklığa ve yanılmaya sebep olmaktır. Müşterilerin aldanmasına ve her iki markayı birbirine karıştırmasına sebep olacak şekilde gözde ve kulakta aynı tesiri meydana getirecek markalarda iltibas mevcuttur. Bu mevcudiyetin var olup olmadığının tespiti için çoğunlukla bilirkişi incelemesi yoluna gidilir. İltibas halleri Türk Ticaret Kanununun ilgili madde metninde sınırlı olmamak kaydı ile sayılmıştır. Bu hallerden en çok unvan ve markaların taklit edilmesi taklit edilmesi suretiyle iltibas oluşmaktadır. 556 sayılı Markaların Korunması Hakkında Kanun Hükmünde Kararnamenin 8/ I.b ve 9/ I.b maddelerinde ise, iltibas kavramına yakın ancak bu kavramdan daha geniş bir kavram olan “karıştırılma ihtimali” kavramı düzenlenmiştir. Karıştırılma ihtimali kavramına her iki hükümde de yer verilmesi, bu kavramın hem tescil engeli hem de tecavüz eylemi olduğunu göstermektedir. Markaların Korunması Hakkında Kanun Hükmünde Kararname’de yer alan karıştırılma ihtimali kavramına bağlantı olması ihtimali hali de dahil olduğundan Markalar Kanunu ve Türk Ticaret Kanununda yer alan iltibas kavramına göre daha geniştir. Çünkü karıştırılma ihtimalinde halkın iki işaret arasında herhangi bir şekilde, herhangi bir nedenden dolayı bağlantı kurması sonucu yanılgıya düşmesi yeterlidir. “İltibas” olsun “karıştırılma ihtimali” olsun bu iki yanılma durumunun önüne geçmenin yolu kullanıcının bilgilenmesidir. Kullanıcının bilgilenmesi iki yolla gerçekleşebilir. Birincisi kullanıcının eğitim yoluyla bilgilenmesi, ikincisi ise kullanıcının uygulama yoluyla bilgilenmesidir. Uygulama yoluyla bilgilenme günümüzde daha etkin görülmekte ise de teknolojideki yeni gelişmelere, eğitim yoluyla bilgilenen kullanıcının daha iyi uyum sağlayabileceği görülmektedir.
The commercial rivalry, which is the basis of liberal and mixed economies, has functions that increase productivity, increase the quality of goods produced and services rendered and decrease prices. Rivalry which is an advantageous establishment with these aspects, should be within the frames of honesty rules and should not be misused. In our country, an individual regulation that arranges Unfair Competition Code cannot be discussed. The establishment of Unfair Competition in Turkish Law has been basically arranged between the Articles of 56 and 65 of Turkish Commercial Code. Analogy means a person causing confusion and mistaking that create similarity concerning assets, work products, activities and commercial operation of somebody else. There is analogy in trademarks which cause similar visual and auditory effects that lead to confusion of both trademarks and to deception of customers. In order to determine whether analogy is present or not, we usually refer to an expert. The cases of analogy are listed in but not limited with the relevant article of Turkish Commercial Code. Analogy in the said cases, consists in majority of imitation of titles and trademarks. In Articles 8/ I.b and 9/ I.b of Decree Regarding Protection of Trademarks no. 556, the concept of “probability to confuse” has been specified which is close to the term of analogy but broader than this concept. The fact that this concept of probability to confuse is mentioned in both of the provisions, shows that this concept is both an obstacle for registration and an act of assault. The concept of probability to confuse mentioned in the Decree Regarding Protection of Trademarks, since the probability of being related with the said concept is included, is broader than the concept of analogy mentioned in the Code of Trademarks. Because in the case of probability to confuse, it is a satisfactory reason if people are mistaken by making a connection between two signs in any way and for any reason. Both for “analogy” and for “probability to confuse”, the only way to avoid these deceptions is the acknowledgement of user. Acknowledgement of user can be realized in two ways. The first one is acknowledgment by training and the second one is acknowledgment of user by practice. Though acknowledgment by practice seems more effective in our day, it is proved that new developments in technology are adapted more easily by the user acknowledged by training.
The commercial rivalry, which is the basis of liberal and mixed economies, has functions that increase productivity, increase the quality of goods produced and services rendered and decrease prices. Rivalry which is an advantageous establishment with these aspects, should be within the frames of honesty rules and should not be misused. In our country, an individual regulation that arranges Unfair Competition Code cannot be discussed. The establishment of Unfair Competition in Turkish Law has been basically arranged between the Articles of 56 and 65 of Turkish Commercial Code. Analogy means a person causing confusion and mistaking that create similarity concerning assets, work products, activities and commercial operation of somebody else. There is analogy in trademarks which cause similar visual and auditory effects that lead to confusion of both trademarks and to deception of customers. In order to determine whether analogy is present or not, we usually refer to an expert. The cases of analogy are listed in but not limited with the relevant article of Turkish Commercial Code. Analogy in the said cases, consists in majority of imitation of titles and trademarks. In Articles 8/ I.b and 9/ I.b of Decree Regarding Protection of Trademarks no. 556, the concept of “probability to confuse” has been specified which is close to the term of analogy but broader than this concept. The fact that this concept of probability to confuse is mentioned in both of the provisions, shows that this concept is both an obstacle for registration and an act of assault. The concept of probability to confuse mentioned in the Decree Regarding Protection of Trademarks, since the probability of being related with the said concept is included, is broader than the concept of analogy mentioned in the Code of Trademarks. Because in the case of probability to confuse, it is a satisfactory reason if people are mistaken by making a connection between two signs in any way and for any reason. Both for “analogy” and for “probability to confuse”, the only way to avoid these deceptions is the acknowledgement of user. Acknowledgement of user can be realized in two ways. The first one is acknowledgment by training and the second one is acknowledgment of user by practice. Though acknowledgment by practice seems more effective in our day, it is proved that new developments in technology are adapted more easily by the user acknowledged by training.