Publication: Fikri hakların ihlali suretiyle elde edilen kazancın devri
Abstract
Fikri hakların ihlali halinde ileri sürülebilecek hukuki talepler 5846 sayılı Fikir ve Sanat Eserleri Kanunu’nun 66 vd. maddelerinde düzenlenmiştir. Fikri hakları ihlal edilen kişinin ileri sürebileceği talepler; tecavüzün sona erdirilmesi talebi (FSEK m. 66-68), çoklu tazminat talebi (FSEK m. 68), muhtemel bir tecavüzün önlenmesi talebi (FSEK m. 69), manevi ve maddi tazminat talepleri (FSEK m. 70/ 1, 2) ve son olarak kazanç devri talebidir (FSEK m. 70/ 3). Çalışmamızın konusu, bu taleplerden biri olan kazanç devri (FSEK m. 70/ 3) talebidir. Kazanç devri talebi, gerçek olmayan vekaletsiz iş görmeye dayalı bir taleptir. Bu talebin ileri sürülebilmesi için şu unsurların varlığı aranır: İş gören tarafından başkasına ait bir işin görülmüş olması, iş görenin kendisinin veya üçüncü bir kişinin menfaatine hareket etmiş olması, iş gören açısından bu işi görmenin hukuka aykırı olması, iş görenin bir kazanç elde etmiş olması, bu kazanç ile iş görme eylemi arasında bir nedensellik bağının bulunması ve (öğretide tartışmalı olmakla birlikte) iş görenin kötüniyetli olması. Başkasına ait bir fikri hakkın kullanılması, bu bağlamda, başkasına ait bir işin görülmesi anlamına gelir. Bu hakkın kullanılmasını hukuka uygun kılan bir hukuki işlem veya kanun hükmü bulunmuyorsa, hukuka aykırı bir iş görmeden söz edilir. Fikri hakları hukuka aykırı şekilde kullanan kişi, bu eylemin hukuka aykırı olduğunu biliyorsa veya bilebilecek durumdaysa ve bu ihlal suretiyle bir kazanç elde etmişse, hak sahibi, bu kazancın kendisine devrini talep edebilir.
Article 66-70 of Law No. 5846 on Intellectual and Artistic Works (“Law”) stipulates the legal claims which may be brought in case of violation of intellectual rights. The right holder may make a request to remedy an existing infringement (Law art. 66-68), for multiple damage claims (Law art. 68), to prohibit an imminent infringement (Law art. 69), for pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensation claims (Law art. 70/ 1, 2) and for transfer of profits (Law art. 70/ 3). The subject of our study is the transfer of profits (Law art. 70/ 3), which is one of these demands. The request for transfer of profits is a request based on false agency without authority. In order for this claim to be asserted, the required conditions are indicated below: The agent has conducted another person’s business, the agent has acted in the interest of himself/ herself or a third person, it is illegal for the agent to conducted such business, the agent has earned a profit, there is relation of causality between such profit and the act of conducting business and (although it is controversial in the doctrine) that the agent is in bad faith. In this context, the use of another person’s intellectual right means conducting another person’s business. If there is no legal act or provision of law that make the use of the foregoing right lawful, such use is considered as false agency without authority. If the person violating the intellectual rights knows or should have known that such action is unlawful and has gained a profit by this violation, the right holder may request the transfer of this profit to himself/ herself in accordance with the provisions of false agency without authority.
Article 66-70 of Law No. 5846 on Intellectual and Artistic Works (“Law”) stipulates the legal claims which may be brought in case of violation of intellectual rights. The right holder may make a request to remedy an existing infringement (Law art. 66-68), for multiple damage claims (Law art. 68), to prohibit an imminent infringement (Law art. 69), for pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensation claims (Law art. 70/ 1, 2) and for transfer of profits (Law art. 70/ 3). The subject of our study is the transfer of profits (Law art. 70/ 3), which is one of these demands. The request for transfer of profits is a request based on false agency without authority. In order for this claim to be asserted, the required conditions are indicated below: The agent has conducted another person’s business, the agent has acted in the interest of himself/ herself or a third person, it is illegal for the agent to conducted such business, the agent has earned a profit, there is relation of causality between such profit and the act of conducting business and (although it is controversial in the doctrine) that the agent is in bad faith. In this context, the use of another person’s intellectual right means conducting another person’s business. If there is no legal act or provision of law that make the use of the foregoing right lawful, such use is considered as false agency without authority. If the person violating the intellectual rights knows or should have known that such action is unlawful and has gained a profit by this violation, the right holder may request the transfer of this profit to himself/ herself in accordance with the provisions of false agency without authority.