{"id":1151,"date":"2023-11-11T15:03:16","date_gmt":"2023-11-11T15:03:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.mecidiyekoywebtasarim.com\/istanbulkriminalofis\/?p=1151"},"modified":"2023-11-11T15:03:16","modified_gmt":"2023-11-11T15:03:16","slug":"bolge-istinaf-mahkemesi-karari-uzman-gorusu","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.mecidiyekoywebtasarim.com\/istanbulkriminalofis\/2023\/11\/11\/bolge-istinaf-mahkemesi-karari-uzman-gorusu\/","title":{"rendered":"B\u00d6LGE \u0130ST\u0130NAF MAHKEMES\u0130 KARARI &#8211; Uzman G\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>\u0130stanbul B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 16. Hukuk Dairesi taraf\u0131ndan verilen 15.03.2019 tarih, 2019\/528 Esas, 2019\/556 Say\u0131l\u0131 Karar\u0131nda \u00f6zetle; <\/strong><\/p>\n<p>GERE\u011e\u0130 D\u00dc\u015e\u00dcN\u00dcLD\u00dc:Davac\u0131 vekili, TPMK nezdinde tescilli bulunan &#8230;&#8230; ve &#8230;. numaral\u0131 markalar\u0131n m\u00fcvekkiline ait oldu\u011funu, daval\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcvekkilinin izni ve r\u0131zas\u0131 olmaks\u0131z\u0131n s\u00f6z konusu markalar\u0131n ayn\u0131s\u0131n\u0131 ve\/veya ay\u0131rt edilemeyecek derecede benzerlerini kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu durumun ayn\u0131 zamanda haks\u0131z rekabet de olu\u015fturdu\u011funu, ayr\u0131ca m\u00fcvekkiline ait \u00fcr\u00fcnlerin isimlerinin sadece ba\u015f\u0131na \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc \u015fah\u0131s firma ismi ile de\u011fi\u015ftirip piyasaya s\u00fcr\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc, m\u00fcvekkiline ait markan\u0131n &#8230;&#8230; iken taklit \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn &#8230;&#8230;., yine m\u00fcvekkiline ait markan\u0131n &#8230;&#8230;.. iken taklit \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn &#8230;&#8230; oldu\u011funu, yine m\u00fcvekkiline ait markan\u0131n &#8230;&#8230;. iken \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn &#8230;&#8230;&#8230; oldu\u011funu, yine m\u00fcvekkiline ait &#8230;&#8230;. markas\u0131 oldu\u011funu, taklit \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn ise &#8230;&#8230; oldu\u011funu, daval\u0131n\u0131n taklit yaparak m\u00fcvekkil firman\u0131n m\u00fc\u015fterilerine sat\u0131\u015f yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, sat\u0131\u015fa ili\u015fkin faturay\u0131 dilek\u00e7e ekinde sunduklar\u0131n\u0131 belirterek haks\u0131z rekabetin tespitine ve men&#8217;ine, m\u00fcvekkilinin tescilli tasar\u0131m\u0131na y\u00f6nelik tecav\u00fcz\u00fcn tespitine, men&#8217;ine, markaya tecav\u00fcz nedeniyle tazminata h\u00fckmedilmesini istemi\u015f, ayr\u0131ca daval\u0131n\u0131n markaya tecav\u00fcz ve fiillerinin durdurulmas\u0131, bas\u0131lan bro\u015f\u00fcr, afi\u015f, tan\u0131t\u0131m ve her t\u00fcrl\u00fc tan\u0131t\u0131m vas\u0131tas\u0131na el konularak toplat\u0131lmas\u0131na, ayr\u0131ca daval\u0131ya ait internet sitesinde m\u00fcvekkiline ait davaya konu markalar\u0131n sat\u0131\u015f ve tan\u0131t\u0131m\u0131 yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan eri\u015fimin engellenmesi ve dava sonuna kadar yay\u0131ndan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 amac\u0131yla ihtiyati tedbir karar\u0131 verilmesini istemi\u015ftir. Daval\u0131 vekili, davac\u0131n\u0131n iddia etti\u011fi \u015fekilde bir durumun s\u00f6z konusu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, m\u00fcvekkilinin davac\u0131n\u0131n markas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik tecav\u00fcz eyleminin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, m\u00fcvekkilinin kendi markas\u0131na sahip bir firma oldu\u011funu, davac\u0131n\u0131n amac\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcvekkiline ait itibar\u0131 zedelemek oldu\u011funu, cevap dilek\u00e7esi ekinde sunduklar\u0131 uzman g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde de belirtildi\u011fi \u00fczere m\u00fcvekkilinin tescilsiz olarak kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 markalar\u0131n davac\u0131n\u0131n tescilli markalar\u0131 ile kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lma ihtimali bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, gerek davac\u0131n\u0131n, gerekse m\u00fcvekkilinin markalar\u0131nda bahsi ge\u00e7en &#8220;&#8230;&#8230;&#8221; ifadesinin kimya ve tekstil sekt\u00f6r\u00fcnde kullan\u0131lan ha\u015f\u0131l kelimesinin ingilizcesi oldu\u011funu, \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn hangi alanda ve hangi a\u015fmada kullan\u0131lan bir \u00fcr\u00fcn oldu\u011funu ifade etti\u011fini, yine &#8220;&#8230;&#8230;&#8221; ifadesinin bask\u0131 anlam\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131yan bask\u0131 kimyasallar\u0131n\u0131 ifade etti\u011fini, buna g\u00f6re markalar\u0131n k\u00f6k k\u0131sm\u0131ndan sonra birbirinin ayn\u0131s\u0131 anonim olarak kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, anonim kullan\u0131ml\u0131 ibareler hakk\u0131nda marka sahibinin tekel hakk\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin Yarg\u0131tay 11.HD&#8217;nin kararlar\u0131 bulundu\u011funu, yine \u00fcr\u00fcn i\u00e7eriklerinin benzer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 bildirerek davan\u0131n reddini istemi\u015ftir.Mahkemece, 06\/11\/2018 tarihinde, davac\u0131ya ait tescilli markalar\u0131n bulundu\u011fu, daval\u0131n\u0131n ticaret unvan\u0131n\u0131n as\u0131l unsuru olan &#8220;&#8230;..&#8221; ibaresinin yaz\u0131l\u0131 oldu\u011fu \u00fcr\u00fcn ambalajlar\u0131n\u0131n alt\u0131nda davac\u0131n\u0131n tescilli markalar\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015f\u0131ndaki isimlerin de\u011fi\u015ftirilerek kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7eleriyle 30.000 TL teminat kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ihtiyati tedbir talebinin kabul\u00fc ile, davac\u0131 markalar\u0131 ile benzerlik arzeden \u00fcr\u00fcnler ile ilgili daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan bas\u0131lan bro\u015f\u00fcr, afi\u015f ve her t\u00fcrl\u00fc tan\u0131t\u0131m materyallerinin bulunduklar\u0131 yerlerden tedbiren toplat\u0131larak yediemine teslimine, bu \u00fcr\u00fcnlerin sat\u0131\u015f ve tan\u0131t\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 varsa daval\u0131ya ait internet sitesindeki sayfalar\u0131n tedbiren \u00e7\u0131kart\u0131lmas\u0131na, bu m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011filse T\u00fcrkiye&#8217;den internet sitesine eri\u015fimin tedbiren engellenmesine karar verilmi\u015f, karara daval\u0131 vekili itiraz etmi\u015ftir. Daval\u0131 vekili itiraz\u0131nda; cevap dilek\u00e7esindeki hususlar\u0131 tekrar etmi\u015f, konuyla ilgili 21\/11\/2018 tarihli uzman raporunu sunduklar\u0131n\u0131, yine \u00fcr\u00fcn ambalaj tasar\u0131mlar\u0131nda teknik zorunluluk d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda bir benzerlik olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kald\u0131 ki davac\u0131n\u0131n tescilli tasar\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n da bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, \u00fcr\u00fcnlerin raf \u00f6m\u00fcrlerinin k\u0131sa olmas\u0131n\u0131n telafisi olmayan sonu\u00e7lar do\u011furaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131, tedbir karar\u0131n\u0131n davac\u0131 taraf\u00e7a k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, teknoloji casuslu\u011fu tabir edilecek d\u00fczeyde harekette bulunduklar\u0131n\u0131 bildirerek ihtiyati tedbirin kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 istemi\u015ftir. Mahkemece duru\u015fma a\u00e7\u0131larak yap\u0131lan inceleme sonunda; dosya kapsam\u0131na g\u00f6re hen\u00fcz bilirki\u015fi incelemesi yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, ibraz edilen delil ve marka tescil belgelerine g\u00f6re ihtiyati tedbir karar\u0131 verilecek \u015fekilde markalar aras\u0131nda bir benzerlik bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, itiraz eden vekilince ibraz edilen uzman g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcn de bu y\u00f6nde oldu\u011fu, ihtiyati tedbir i\u00e7in yakla\u015f\u0131k ispat ko\u015fulunun da ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmedi\u011fi gerek\u00e7eleriyle 20\/12\/2018 tarihinde ihtiyati tedbire itiraz\u0131n kabul\u00fcne ve ihtiyati tedbirin kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015f, karar\u0131 davac\u0131 vekili istinaf etmi\u015ftir. Davac\u0131 vekili istinaf sebebi olarak; karar\u0131n eksik incelemeye dayal\u0131 oldu\u011funu, beyan dilek\u00e7elerinin ve al\u0131nan raporun okunmadan duru\u015fman\u0131n yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, daval\u0131 \u015firketin m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketin eski \u00e7al\u0131\u015fanlar\u0131 olan &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.. ve depo sorumlusu &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;. i\u015fbirli\u011fi yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, m\u00fcvekkiline ait ticari s\u0131rlar ba\u015fta olmak \u00fczere \u00fcr\u00fcn re\u00e7eteleri, \u00fcr\u00fcnlerde kullan\u0131lan makinelere kadar bir\u00e7ok konuda m\u00fcvekkilini taklit etti\u011fini, hatta benzer \u00fcr\u00fcnleri m\u00fcvekkilinin m\u00fc\u015fterilerine de sat\u0131\u015f yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu nedenle eski eleman &#8230; hakk\u0131nda dava a\u00e7t\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131, daval\u0131 \u015firketin basiretli bir tacir gibi davranmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, m\u00fcvekkiline ait bilgi ve tecr\u00fcbelerden haks\u0131z olarak yararland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve haks\u0131z rekabet yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, yine dava konusu olayda markaya tecav\u00fcz\u00fcn de bulundu\u011funu, marka tecav\u00fcz\u00fc i\u00e7in marka kullan\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n ayn\u0131 veya benzer olmas\u0131, ayn\u0131 veya benzer s\u0131n\u0131flarda kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 ve benzerlik veya ayniyet nedeniyle t\u00fcketici taraf\u0131ndan \u00fcr\u00fcnlerin kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini markalar\u0131n h\u00fck\u00fcmsel olarak de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekti\u011fini, somut olayda davac\u0131 ile daval\u0131n\u0131n ayn\u0131 \u00e7evreye hitabet etmekte oldu\u011funu, \u00fcr\u00fcnlerin benzer \u015fekilde \u00fcretildi\u011fini, karar\u0131n hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funu, yakla\u015f\u0131k ispat ko\u015fulunun ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011fini, mahkemenin haks\u0131z rekabete hi\u00e7 de\u011finmedi\u011fini, karar\u0131n tek yanl\u0131 olarak daval\u0131n\u0131n beyan dilek\u00e7esi okunarak verildi\u011fini, kendilerinin sundu\u011fu dilek\u00e7e ve uzman g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcn duru\u015fma s\u0131ras\u0131nda dosyas\u0131na yeni \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n iddialar\u0131n\u0131 destekler nitelikte oldu\u011funu, sunduklar\u0131 delillerin marka tecav\u00fcz\u00fcn ve haks\u0131z rekabetin ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011fini do\u011frular nitelikte oldu\u011funu bildirmi\u015ftir. Dava dilek\u00e7esine ekli marka tescil belgelerinin incelenmesinde; davac\u0131ya ait &#8230;&#8230;&#8230; tescil numaral\u0131 &#8230;&#8230;. markas\u0131n\u0131n 11\/01\/2018 tarihinden itibaren ge\u00e7erli olmak \u00fczere 1.s\u0131n\u0131f emtialar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden tescil edildi\u011fi, &#8230;. tescil numaral\u0131 &#8230;. markas\u0131n\u0131n 1.s\u0131n\u0131f emtilar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden 11\/01\/2018 tarihinden itibaren, &#8230;.. tescil numaral\u0131 &#8230;&#8230; markas\u0131n\u0131n 1.s\u0131n\u0131f emtialar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden 11\/01\/2018 tarihinden itibaren, &#8230;.. tescil numaral\u0131 &#8230;. markas\u0131n\u0131n 1.s\u0131n\u0131f emtialar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden 11\/01\/2018 tarihinden itibaren, &#8230;&#8230;. tescil numaral\u0131 &#8230;. markas\u0131n\u0131n 1.s\u0131n\u0131f emtialar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden 26\/01\/2018 tarihinden itibaren, &#8230;&#8230;tescil numaral\u0131 &#8230;&#8230;.markas\u0131n\u0131n 1.s\u0131n\u0131f emtialar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden 26\/01\/2018 tarihinden itibaren tescil edildi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Dava dilek\u00e7esi ekinde sunulan dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 firma taraf\u0131ndan davac\u0131ya d\u00fczenlenen 24\/07\/2018 tarihli faturan\u0131n &#8220;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.&#8221; \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc sat\u0131\u015f\u0131na ili\u015fkin oldu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Dava dilek\u00e7esine ekli \u00fcr\u00fcn g\u00f6rsellerine g\u00f6re daval\u0131ya ait oldu\u011fu belirtilen \u00fcr\u00fcnlerde daval\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7ekirdek unvan\u0131 olan s\u00f6zal ibaresinin alt k\u0131sm\u0131nda &#8220;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8221; , &#8220;&#8230;&#8230;.&#8221; , &#8220;&#8230;&#8230;.&#8221; yaz\u0131l\u0131 oldu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan itiraz\u0131na ekli olarak sunulan 21\/11\/2018 g\u00fcnl\u00fc <strong>uzman g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc<\/strong>nde; daval\u0131n\u0131n tescilsiz kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 markalar\u0131n davac\u0131 tescilli markalar\u0131 ile kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lma ihtimali bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n tescilli veya tescilsiz kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 tasar\u0131mlar\u0131n ilk do\u011fum tarihleri ile birlikte dosyaya sunulmas\u0131 halinde konuda uzman g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc verilebilece\u011fi, yine davac\u0131n\u0131n \u00fcr\u00fcnlerine ait re\u00e7ete verilerini dosyaya sunmas\u0131 halinde <strong>uzman g\u00f6r\u00fc<\/strong>\u015f\u00fc verilebilece\u011fi \u015feklinde g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f belirtildi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan sunulan 15\/12\/2018 g\u00fcnl\u00fc iki ki\u015filik <strong>uzman g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc<\/strong> raporunda ise; <strong>markalar<\/strong> aras\u0131nda b\u00fct\u00fcnsel de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi, daval\u0131n\u0131n basiretli bir tacir gibi davranmakla y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc olup davac\u0131n\u0131n markalar\u0131n\u0131 bilmesi gerekti\u011fi, bu \u00fcr\u00fcnlerin ba\u015f\u0131na &#8230;&#8230; gibi gelimeler getirilerek ay\u0131rt edicili\u011finin sa\u011flanmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmayaca\u011f\u0131, m\u00fc\u015fterilerin <strong>marka<\/strong>lar\u0131 birebir kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131rmasa da ayn\u0131 nitelikte \u00fcr\u00fcn olaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnece\u011fini, dosyaya sunulan <strong>belge<\/strong>lere g\u00f6re daval\u0131 ile dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 &#8230;. aras\u0131nda i\u015fbirli\u011fi oldu\u011fu, bu durumun <strong>haks\u0131z rekabet <\/strong>olu\u015fturdu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n<p>GEREK\u00c7E: Dava, haks\u0131z rekabetin tespiti, men&#8217;i, tasar\u0131ma tecav\u00fcz\u00fcn tespiti ve men&#8217;i, markaya tecav\u00fcz fiilleri nedeniyle maddi ve manevi tazminat talebine ili\u015fkindir. Dairemiz \u00f6n\u00fcne gelen uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k ise ihtiyati tedbire itiraz\u0131n kabul\u00fc karar\u0131na y\u00f6neliktir. Davac\u0131 taraf, daval\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcvekkilinin marka haklar\u0131na, tasar\u0131m\u0131na tecav\u00fcz etti\u011fini, bu durumun ayn\u0131 zamanda haks\u0131z fiil oldu\u011funu iddia etmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7ta mahkemece ihtiyati tedbir karar\u0131 verilmi\u015f ise de, daval\u0131 taraf\u0131n itiraz\u0131 \u00fczerine markalar aras\u0131nda benzerlik bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve daval\u0131 taraf\u00e7a sunulan uzman g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn de bu y\u00f6nde oldu\u011fu, yakla\u015f\u0131k ispat ko\u015fulunun ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmedi\u011fi gerek\u00e7eleriyle itiraz\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar verilmi\u015ftir. Davac\u0131 taraf istinaf\u0131nda kendilerinin itiraza kar\u015f\u0131 verdikleri beyan dilek\u00e7esinin incelenmedi\u011fini, ayr\u0131ca sunduklar\u0131 <strong>uzman g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc<\/strong>n\u00fcn de de\u011ferlendirilmedi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Ger\u00e7ekten de karar yerinde davac\u0131 taraf\u0131n itiraza kar\u015f\u0131 yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 beyanlar\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmedi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Davan\u0131n niteli\u011fi, ihtiyati tedbir ve ihtiyati tedbire itiraz edildi\u011fi de g\u00f6zetilerek, konusunda <strong>uzman<\/strong> bir kimya m\u00fchendisi, bir tasar\u0131mc\u0131, bir de <strong>marka<\/strong> konusunda <strong>uzman<\/strong>dan olu\u015fturulacak bilirki\u015fi heyetinden taraflar\u0131n iddia ve savunmalar\u0131, taraflarca sunulan deliller, g\u00f6rseller ve ambalajlar \u00fczerinde <strong>bilirki\u015fi<\/strong> <strong>incelemesi<\/strong> yapt\u0131r\u0131larak var\u0131lacak uygun sonu\u00e7 dairesinde ihtiyati tedbire y\u00f6nelik itirazla ilgili bir karar verilmesi gerekirken eksik inceleme ile yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde karar verilmesi usul ve yasaya ayk\u0131r\u0131d\u0131r denildi\u011fi,<\/p>\n<p>Sonu\u00e7 olarak; davac\u0131, daval\u0131n\u0131n marka ve tasar\u0131m haklar\u0131na tecav\u00fcz etti\u011fini ve haks\u0131z rekabet yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrerek, bu fiillerin tespiti ve men&#8217;i ile maddi ve manevi tazminat istemi\u015ftir. Mahkeme, davac\u0131n\u0131n ihtiyati tedbir talebini kabul etmi\u015f ancak daval\u0131n\u0131n itiraz\u0131 \u00fczerine karar\u0131n\u0131 kald\u0131rm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Daval\u0131n\u0131n itiraz\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 davac\u0131n\u0131n sundu\u011fu deliller ve <strong>uzman g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fleri<\/strong> dikkate al\u0131nmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu durumda, davac\u0131n\u0131n istinaf ba\u015fvurusu hakl\u0131d\u0131r. Davan\u0131n konusu, kimya m\u00fchendisli\u011fi, <strong>tasar\u0131m<\/strong> ve <strong>marka<\/strong> uzmanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerektirmektedir. Bu nedenle, bu alanlarda <strong>bilirki\u015fi heyeti<\/strong> olu\u015fturularak, taraflar\u0131n iddia ve savunmalar\u0131, delilleri, g\u00f6rselleri ve ambalajlar\u0131 incelenmeli ve ihtiyati tedbire itiraz hakk\u0131nda uygun bir karar verilmelidir. Mahkemenin eksik inceleme sonucu verdi\u011fi karar hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6sterilerek bozma karar\u0131 verildi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>\u0130stanbul B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 16. Hukuk Dairesi taraf\u0131ndan verilen 15.03.2019 tarih, 2019\/528 Esas, 2019\/556 Say\u0131l\u0131 Karar\u0131nda \u00f6zetle; GERE\u011e\u0130 D\u00dc\u015e\u00dcN\u00dcLD\u00dc:Davac\u0131 vekili, TPMK nezdinde tescilli bulunan &#8230;&#8230; ve &#8230;. numaral\u0131 markalar\u0131n m\u00fcvekkiline ait oldu\u011funu, daval\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcvekkilinin izni ve r\u0131zas\u0131 olmaks\u0131z\u0131n s\u00f6z konusu markalar\u0131n ayn\u0131s\u0131n\u0131 ve\/veya ay\u0131rt edilemeyecek derecede benzerlerini kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu durumun ayn\u0131 zamanda haks\u0131z rekabet de&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1152,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_kad_post_transparent":"default","_kad_post_title":"default","_kad_post_layout":"default","_kad_post_sidebar_id":"","_kad_post_content_style":"default","_kad_post_vertical_padding":"default","_kad_post_feature":"","_kad_post_feature_position":"","_kad_post_header":false,"_kad_post_footer":false,"_kad_post_classname":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[29,28,27,25,26,30,21,23],"class_list":["post-1151","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-bilirkisi-heyeti","tag-bilirkisi-incelemesi","tag-haksiz-rekabet","tag-marka","tag-patent","tag-tasarim","tag-uzman","tag-uzman-gorusu"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mecidiyekoywebtasarim.com\/istanbulkriminalofis\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1151"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mecidiyekoywebtasarim.com\/istanbulkriminalofis\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mecidiyekoywebtasarim.com\/istanbulkriminalofis\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mecidiyekoywebtasarim.com\/istanbulkriminalofis\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mecidiyekoywebtasarim.com\/istanbulkriminalofis\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1151"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.mecidiyekoywebtasarim.com\/istanbulkriminalofis\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1151\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1153,"href":"https:\/\/www.mecidiyekoywebtasarim.com\/istanbulkriminalofis\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1151\/revisions\/1153"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mecidiyekoywebtasarim.com\/istanbulkriminalofis\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1152"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mecidiyekoywebtasarim.com\/istanbulkriminalofis\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1151"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mecidiyekoywebtasarim.com\/istanbulkriminalofis\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1151"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mecidiyekoywebtasarim.com\/istanbulkriminalofis\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1151"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}