{"id":1173,"date":"2023-11-13T08:15:41","date_gmt":"2023-11-13T08:15:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.mecidiyekoywebtasarim.com\/istanbulkriminalofis\/?p=1173"},"modified":"2023-11-13T08:15:41","modified_gmt":"2023-11-13T08:15:41","slug":"bolge-adliye-mahkemesi-karari-fikri-ve-sinai-haklar-eksik-inceleme","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.mecidiyekoywebtasarim.com\/istanbulkriminalofis\/2023\/11\/13\/bolge-adliye-mahkemesi-karari-fikri-ve-sinai-haklar-eksik-inceleme\/","title":{"rendered":"B\u00d6LGE ADL\u0130YE MAHKEMES\u0130 KARARI &#8211; Fikri ve S\u0131nai Haklar &#8211; Eksik \u0130nceleme"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>\u0130stanbul B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 16. Hukuk Dairesi taraf\u0131ndan verilen 26.03.2021 tarih, 2021\/392 Esas ve 2021\/662 Say\u0131l\u0131 Karar\u0131nda \u00f6zetle;<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>\u0130LK DERECE MAHKEMES\u0130NE A\u00c7ILAN DAVADA<\/p>\n<p>A-)A\u00e7\u0131lan dava ve iddia : Davac\u0131 vekilinin ihtiyati tedbir talepli dava dilek\u00e7esinde \u00f6zetle; m\u00fcvekkilinin &#8230; firmas\u0131 ve markas\u0131n\u0131n tek sahibi oldu\u011funu, m\u00fcvekkili ayakkab\u0131lar\u0131n\u0131n taklidinin yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki piyasadan gelen \u015fikayetler \u00fczerine daval\u0131ya ait ayakkab\u0131lardan numuneler al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f ve i\u015f bu numunelerin incelenmesi \u00fczerine daval\u0131 \u00fcr\u00fcnlerinin m\u00fcvekkili tasar\u0131mlar\u0131n\u0131n birebir ayn\u0131s\u0131 oldu\u011funun g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc, bunun \u00fczerine m\u00fcvekkilinin haks\u0131z bir i\u015flem yaparak ba\u015fkalar\u0131n\u0131 zan alt\u0131nda b\u0131rakmamak ad\u0131na Yeditepe \u00dcniversitesi Mimarl\u0131k Fak\u00fcltesi End\u00fcstri \u00dcr\u00fcnleri Tasar\u0131m\u0131 B\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fc \u00d6\u011fretim \u00dcyesi Dr. &#8230; \u00fcr\u00fcnleri incelemesi ve taklit olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnde <strong>rapor<\/strong> verilmesini rica ettiklerini, ve <strong>rapor<\/strong> al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, m\u00fcvekkiline ait 2017\/08794-1 tescil numaral\u0131 ayakkab\u0131 konulu &#8230; s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131 end\u00fcstriyel tasar\u0131m tescil belgesi ile korunan tasar\u0131mlar\u0131n, daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan piyasaya s\u00fcr\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f bulunan, ayakkab\u0131 tasar\u0131mlar\u0131n\u0131n, bilgilenmi\u015f kullan\u0131c\u0131lar \u00fczerinde yaratt\u0131klar\u0131 izlenim bak\u0131m\u0131ndan ay\u0131rt edilemez d\u00fczeyde benzerlik arz ettikleri bu nedenlerle daval\u0131n\u0131n taklit niteli\u011findeki \u00fcr\u00fcnlerinin piyasadan toplat\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131, bu \u00fcr\u00fcnleri i\u00e7erir her t\u00fcrl\u00fc kataloglar\u0131n toplat\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131, ilgili \u00fcr\u00fcnlerin \u00fcr\u00fcn kataloglar\u0131ndan \u00e7\u0131kart\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131, her t\u00fcrl\u00fc televizyon reklam\u0131n\u0131n yay\u0131n\u0131n durdurulmas\u0131n\u0131, gazete ve Billboard gibi g\u00f6rsel her t\u00fcrl\u00fc reklam arac\u0131n\u0131n durdurulmas\u0131n\u0131, ilgili \u00fcr\u00fcn g\u00f6rsellerinin bulundu\u011fu internet sitelerinin ilgili sayfalar\u0131na eri\u015fimin yasaklanmas\u0131na, ilgili \u00fcr\u00fcnlerin sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n yasaklanmas\u0131n\u0131, ilgili \u00fcr\u00fcnlerin \u00fcretimlerinin durdurulmas\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnde ihtiyati tedbir karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n<p>B )Bak\u0131rk\u00f6y 2. Fikri ve S\u0131na\u00ee Haklar Hukuk Mahkemesi&#8217;nce 24\/11\/2020 g\u00fcnl\u00fc ara karar ile &#8220;dilek\u00e7e ekindeki <strong>uzman g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc<\/strong> ve TPMK kay\u0131tlar\u0131na g\u00f6re SMK 159 ve HMK 389. vd. aranan ko\u015fullar ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011fi&#8221; gerek\u00e7esiyle tedbir talep eden vekili taraf\u0131ndan, takdiren 50.000,00 TL (ElliBin TL) teminat\u0131n, nakden veya muteber bir bankan\u0131n kesin ve s\u00fcresiz teminat mektubu olarak, karar\u0131n tebli\u011f tarihinden itibaren bir haftal\u0131k kesin s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde ibraz edilmesi halinde ihtiyati tedbir talebinin kabul\u00fc ile; davac\u0131 ad\u0131na tescilli 2017\/08794-1 nolu tasar\u0131m tescilinin koruma kapsam\u0131nda olan daval\u0131 tarafa ait taklit niteli\u011findeki \u00fcr\u00fcnlerinin ve bu \u00fcr\u00fcnleri i\u00e7erir her t\u00fcrl\u00fc kataloglar\u0131n piyasadan toplat\u0131lmas\u0131na, yediemine teslimine, daval\u0131n\u0131n bu \u00fcr\u00fcnlerin \u00fcretiminin, sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n ve tan\u0131t\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n durdurulmas\u0131na, teminat yat\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ihtiyati tedbir karar\u0131n\u0131n uygulanmas\u0131na, ihtiyati tedbir karar\u0131n\u0131n uygulanabilmesi i\u00e7in Bak\u0131rk\u00f6y N\u00f6bet\u00e7i \u0130cra M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc&#8217;n\u00fcn g\u00f6revlendirilmesine, icra m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnce karar\u0131n infaz\u0131nda kar\u0131\u015f\u0131kl\u0131\u011fa neden olunmamas\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan bir tasar\u0131m uzman\u0131 bilirki\u015fisinin haz\u0131r bulundurulmas\u0131na, HMK&#8217;n\u0131n 393\/1. Maddesi gere\u011fince, 1 hafta i\u00e7erisinde ihtiyati tedbirin uygulanmas\u0131 talep edilmedi\u011fi takdirde ihtiyati tedbirin kendili\u011finden kalkm\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na, karar verildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n<p>C-TEDB\u0130RE \u0130T\u0130RAZ Daval\u0131 vekili 23\/12\/2020 tarihli dilek\u00e7esiyle m\u00fcvekkilinin tescilli markalar\u0131ndan bir tanesinin Hammer Jack markas\u0131 oldu\u011funu, 2003 y\u0131l\u0131ndan bu yana m\u00fcvekkili ad\u0131na tescilli oldu\u011funu, markan\u0131n tan\u0131nmas\u0131 i\u00e7in \u00e7ok ciddi yat\u0131r\u0131mlar ve reklam harcamalar\u0131 yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcvekkilinin rakibi firmalardan bir tanesi oldu\u011funu, davac\u0131 ile m\u00fcvekkili aras\u0131nda ticari rekabetin oldu\u011funu, verilen ihtiyati tedbir karar\u0131n\u0131n herhangi bir somut delile dayal\u0131 olarak verilmedi\u011fini, davac\u0131n\u0131n&#8230; numaral\u0131 ve 27\/12\/2017 tarihli ayakkab\u0131 tasar\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n yenilik ve ay\u0131rt edicilik unsurlar\u0131n\u0131n olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n ihtiyati tedbir karar\u0131n\u0131 m\u00fcvekkili adresinde ve m\u00fcvekkili aleyhine de\u011fil dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 3.ki\u015filer aleyhine infaz etti\u011fini, tedbir karar\u0131n\u0131n infaz\u0131ndaki hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k ve k\u00f6t\u00fcniyetin tedbir karar\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 zorunlu k\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, a\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle tedbir karar\u0131na itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fcne, inceleme neticesi ihtiyati tedbir karar\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n<p>D-\u0130T\u0130RAZA CEVAP: Davac\u0131 vekilinin Bak\u0131rk\u00f6y 2. Fikri ve S\u0131na\u00ee Haklar Hukuk Mahkemesi&#8217;nde g\u00f6r\u00fclen 30\/12\/2020 tarihli duru\u015fmada al\u0131nan beyan\u0131nda; mahkemece verilmi\u015f ihtiyati tedbir karar\u0131n\u0131n do\u011fru oldu\u011funu, infaz i\u00e7in gereken s\u00fcrelerde ba\u015fvuru yapt\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131, icra dairesindeki ba\u015fka dosyalar y\u00fcz\u00fcnden infaz tarihinin gecikmi\u015f olabilece\u011fini, ancak ba\u015fvurunun zaman\u0131nda oldu\u011funu, hem m\u00fcvekkilinin \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn\u00fc hem de kar\u015f\u0131 taraf \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn\u00fc huzura getirdiklerini, bu \u00fcr\u00fcnler aras\u0131nda g\u00f6zle g\u00f6r\u00fcl\u00fcr ciddi bir fark olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 mahkemenin takdirine sunduklar\u0131n\u0131, \u00fcr\u00fcnlere ili\u015fkin faturalar\u0131 sunacaklar\u0131n\u0131, ayr\u0131ca karar\u0131n infaz\u0131 s\u0131ras\u0131nda sunulan belgelerden delil niteli\u011fine haiz olanlar\u0131n\u0131 da mahkemeye sunacaklar\u0131n\u0131 beyan etti\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. E-)\u0130lk Derece Mahkemesi Karar\u0131 : \u0130lk derece mahkemesince; &#8220;davac\u0131 vekilinin duru\u015fma salonuna getirmi\u015f oldu\u011fu mavi tabanl\u0131 siyah iki adet ayakkab\u0131 numunesi al\u0131narak duru\u015fmada yap\u0131lan incelemede benzerli\u011fin yo\u011fun oldu\u011funun g\u00f6zlendi\u011fi, gerek dosyaya sunulmu\u015f bulunan <strong>uzman g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc<\/strong>; gerek duru\u015fmada sunulan numunelerin mahkemece bizzat yap\u0131lan incelemesinde genel g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcmde bilgilenmi\u015f kullan\u0131c\u0131 nezdinde bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcm\u00fcnde ayniyet derecesinde benzer olduklar\u0131, her iki \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn (ayakkab\u0131n\u0131n) taban \u015fekli, rengi, \u00fcr\u00fcn rengi, ba\u011fc\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131n konumlan\u0131\u015f\u0131, rengi gibi unsurlar\u0131n\u0131n y\u00fcksek d\u00fczeyde ayniyet\/benzerlik i\u00e7erdikleri, bu hali ile yakla\u015f\u0131k ispat ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n olu\u015ftu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131&#8221; gerek\u00e7esiyle daval\u0131 taraf\u0131n tedbir karar\u0131na yapm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu itiraz\u0131n reddine karar verildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n<p>\u0130LER\u0130 S\u00dcR\u00dcLEN \u0130ST\u0130NAF SEBEPLER\u0130: Karar\u0131 daval\u0131 yan istinaf etmi\u015f ve dilek\u00e7esinde \u00f6zetle &#8220;&#8230;..\u0130htiyati tedbir karar\u0131 1 haftal\u0131k hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcre ge\u00e7irildikten sonra infaz edilmi\u015ftir. 24.11.2020 tarihli tedbir karar\u0131, HMK &#8216; da belirtilen 1 haftal\u0131k hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcre ge\u00e7irildi\u011fi halde infaz edilmeye devam edilmi\u015f, bu husus tedbire itiraz incelemesinde davac\u0131 taraf\u00e7a da ikrar edilmi\u015ftir. 30.12.2020 tarihli karar\u0131n 1. Sayfas\u0131n\u0131n son paragraf\u0131nda, davac\u0131 icra dairesinin yo\u011funlu\u011fu sebebi ile karar\u0131 s\u00fcresinde infaz edemedi\u011fini a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a ikrar etmektedir. M\u00fcvekkile kar\u015f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lan davada m\u00fcvekkile kar\u015f\u0131 al\u0131nan ihtiyati tedbir karar\u0131n\u0131n, dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 3. ki\u015filerin i\u015fyerinde ve dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 3. ki\u015filer aleyhine infaz\u0131n\u0131n hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 ayk\u0131r\u0131d\u0131r. M\u00fcvekkilin tescilli markalar\u0131ndan bir tanesi . piyasada yayg\u0131n bir tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015fl\u0131\u011fa ula\u015fm\u0131\u015f, &#8220;&#8230;&#8221; markas\u0131d\u0131r. &#8220;&#8230;&#8221; ibaresi, ayakkab\u0131 ve ili\u015fkili emtialar\u0131 kapsayan 25. S\u0131n\u0131fta 2003 y\u0131l\u0131ndan bu yana m\u00fcvekkil ad\u0131na tescillidir &#8230; numaral\u0131 &#8220;&#8230;&#8221; ibareli, &#8230; numaral\u0131 &#8220;&#8230;&#8221; ibareli, &#8230; numaral\u0131 &#8220;&#8230;+ \u015eEK\u0130L&#8221; ibareli, &#8230; numaral\u0131 &#8220;&#8230; HERKES G\u0130YECEK + \u015eEK\u0130L&#8221; ibareli markalar, TP E nezdinde tescilli m\u00fcvekkil markalar\u0131d\u0131r. M\u00fcvekkil, &#8220;&#8221;&#8230;&#8221; markas\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131nmas\u0131 i\u00e7in \u00e7ok ciddi yat\u0131r\u0131mlar ve reklam harcamalar\u0131 yapmaktad\u0131r. \u00d6rne\u011fin kamuoyunda bilinen &#8220;&#8230;&#8221; program\u0131n\u0131n sponsorlar\u0131ndan bir tanesi de &#8220;&#8230;&#8221; markas\u0131 ile m\u00fcvekkildir. &#8220;&#8230;&#8221; hem olu\u015fturulan koleksiyonlar ile hem de dizayn \u00e7izgisi ile \u00f6zellikle gen\u00e7ler aras\u0131nda \u00e7ok ra\u011fbet g\u00f6ren bir marka halini alm\u0131\u015f, bu durum maalesef her zaman oldu\u011fu gibi rakiplerinin de dikkatini \u00e7ekmi\u015ftir. Davac\u0131 da m\u00fcvekkilin rakibi olan firmalardan bir tanesidir. Davac\u0131 ile m\u00fcvekkil aras\u0131nda ticari rekabet s\u00f6z konusudur. M\u00fcvekkili kendisine ciddi bir rakip olarak g\u00f6ren davac\u0131 rekabet hukuku kurallar\u0131n\u0131 ihlal eden bir \u00e7ok davran\u0131\u015fta bulunmaktad\u0131r. Harc\u0131 alem tasar\u0131m tescilleri al\u0131nmas\u0131, m\u00fcvekkilin bayilerine bask\u0131 uygulanmas\u0131, m\u00fcvekkil \u00e7al\u0131\u015fanlar\u0131n\u0131n y\u00fcksek \u00fccret vaadleri ile transfer edilmesi vs&#8230; uygulamalar davac\u0131n\u0131n rekabet hukuku kurallar\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 davran\u0131\u015flar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6rneklerdir. Huzurdaki dava da mahkemenin yan\u0131lt\u0131larak elde edilmek istenen haks\u0131z kazan\u00e7lara \u00f6rnektir. M\u00fcvekkilin \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc ile daval\u0131 \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc aras\u0131nda, &#8220;tasar\u0131mserbestisi&#8221; \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde farkl\u0131l\u0131klar mevcuttur. m\u00fcvekkilin \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc daval\u0131 tasar\u0131m\u0131na tecav\u00fcz te\u015fkil etmemektedir. Daval\u0131n\u0131n &#8230; numaral\u0131 \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc, d\u0131\u015far\u0131dan bak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda(genel izlenim itibari ile) temel olarak saya ve taban par\u00e7alar\u0131ndan olu\u015fmakta olan bir ayakkab\u0131d\u0131r. Daval\u0131n\u0131n ayakkab\u0131 \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc, daval\u0131 ad\u0131na tescilli &#8220;&#8230;&#8221; markas\u0131 ile etiketlenerek ay\u0131rt edicilik kazand\u0131r\u0131larak piyasaya s\u00fcr\u00fclmekte, m\u00fcvekkile ait \u00fcr\u00fcn ise 25. S\u0131n\u0131fta 2003 y\u0131l\u0131ndan bu yana m\u00fcvekkil ad\u0131na tescilli olan ve &#8220;&#8230;&#8217; markas\u0131 ile etiketlenerek ay\u0131rt edicilik kazand\u0131r\u0131larak piyasaya s\u00fcr\u00fclmektedir. Buna g\u00f6re daval\u0131ya ait &#8221;&#8230;&#8221; \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn\u00fc sat\u0131n almak isteyen bir t\u00fcketicinin, m\u00fcvekkile ait &#8220;&#8230;&#8221; markal\u0131 \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc sat\u0131n almas\u0131, \u00f6ncelikle kullan\u0131lan markalar\u0131n katt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ay\u0131rt edici karakter sebebi ile olanaks\u0131zd\u0131r. \u0130ki ayakkab\u0131 \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc aras\u0131ndaki en b\u00fcy\u00fck benzerlik; iki \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn de siyah , sar\u0131 ve mavi renk kombinasyonlar\u0131ndan olu\u015fan outdoor ayakkab\u0131 \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc olmalar\u0131ndan ibarettir. Nitekim mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde &#8220;davac\u0131 taraf\u0131n duru\u015fma salonuna getirdi\u011fi mavi tabanl\u0131 iki adet siyah ayakkab\u0131 numunesinin duru\u015fmada incelenmesi sureti ile benzerli\u011fi yo\u011fun oldu\u011fu, iki \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn\u00fcn tabiin \u015fekli, rengi, \u00fcr\u00fcn rengi, ba\u011fc\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131n konumlan\u0131\u015f\u0131 rengi gibi unsurlar\u0131n\u0131n y\u00fcksek d\u00fczeyde ayniyet\/benzerlik i\u00e7erdi\u011fi'&#8221;&#8216; \u015feklindeki ifadeden de benzerli\u011fin renk benzerli\u011finden ibret oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Davac\u0131n\u0131n tasar\u0131m\u0131 yenilik ve ay\u0131rt edicilik unsurlar\u0131ndan yoksundur. H\u00fckmedilen teminat m\u00fcvekkilin zarar ve ziyan\u0131n\u0131 kar\u0131\u015f\u0131lmaktan \u00e7ok uzakt\u0131r&#8230;.&#8221; denilerek karar\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 ve itiraz\u0131n kabul\u00fcn\u00fc talep ve istinaf etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n<p>DEL\u0130LLER\u0130N TARTI\u015eILMASI VE GEREK\u00c7E :Dava ; markaya tecav\u00fcz\u00fcn \u00f6nlenmesi davas\u0131d\u0131r. \u0130stinaf edilen husus ise verilen ihtiyati tedbire itiraz\u0131n reddi y\u00f6n\u00fcndendir. \u0130nceleme, 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu&#8217;nun(HMK) 355. maddesi h\u00fckm\u00fc uyar\u0131nca istinaf dilek\u00e7elerinde belirtilen sebeplerle s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 olarak ve kamu d\u00fczenine ayk\u0131r\u0131 hususlar\u0131n olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6zetilerek yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Davac\u0131 yan\u0131n sundu\u011fu uzman g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc dikkate al\u0131narak ve sundu\u011fu delillere g\u00f6re ihtiyati tedbir karar\u0131 verildi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Ancak daval\u0131 yan\u0131n itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmesi a\u015famas\u0131nda inceleme yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve mahkeme hakiminin kendi g\u00f6zlemine g\u00f6re karar verdi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. \u0130ncelenmesi gereken husus ise teknik bilgi gerektirir bir husus oldu\u011fundan, tedbire itiraz\u0131n <strong>bilirki\u015fi raporu<\/strong> al\u0131narak de\u011ferlendirilmesi sa\u011fl\u0131kl\u0131 bir sonuca ula\u015fmak i\u00e7in gerekli olmakla, daval\u0131 yan\u0131n istinaf ba\u015fvurusun kabul\u00fc ile bu y\u00f6nde delillerin toplan\u0131p de\u011ferlendirilmesi i\u00e7in dosyan\u0131n ilk derece mahkemesine g\u00f6nderilmesine karar vermek gerekmi\u015ftir denildi\u011fi,<\/p>\n<p>Sonu\u00e7 olarak; Dava, markan\u0131n tecav\u00fcze u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 iddia eden davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, daval\u0131 taraf ise ihtiyati tedbir karar\u0131na itiraz etti\u011fi, davac\u0131 taraf\u0131n sundu\u011fu <strong>uzman g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc<\/strong> ve delillere g\u00f6re mahkemece karar verildi\u011fi, ancak daval\u0131 taraf\u0131n itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmesinde mahkeme hakimi, kendi g\u00f6zlemine dayanarak karar verdi\u011fi, bu durumda, teknik bilgi gerektiren bir konuda <strong>bilirki\u015fi raporu <\/strong>al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi, bu nedenle, daval\u0131 taraf\u0131n istinaf ba\u015fvurusu kabul edilmi\u015f ve delillerin toplanmas\u0131 ve de\u011ferlendirilmesi i\u00e7in bozma karar\u0131 verildi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>\u0130stanbul B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 16. Hukuk Dairesi taraf\u0131ndan verilen 26.03.2021 tarih, 2021\/392 Esas ve 2021\/662 Say\u0131l\u0131 Karar\u0131nda \u00f6zetle; \u0130LK DERECE MAHKEMES\u0130NE A\u00c7ILAN DAVADA A-)A\u00e7\u0131lan dava ve iddia : Davac\u0131 vekilinin ihtiyati tedbir talepli dava dilek\u00e7esinde \u00f6zetle; m\u00fcvekkilinin &#8230; firmas\u0131 ve markas\u0131n\u0131n tek sahibi oldu\u011funu, m\u00fcvekkili ayakkab\u0131lar\u0131n\u0131n taklidinin yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki piyasadan gelen \u015fikayetler \u00fczerine daval\u0131ya ait&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1174,"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":[32,18,23],"class_list":["post-1173","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-bilirkisi-raporu","tag-rapor","tag-uzman-gorusu"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mecidiyekoywebtasarim.com\/istanbulkriminalofis\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1173"}],"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=1173"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.mecidiyekoywebtasarim.com\/istanbulkriminalofis\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1173\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1175,"href":"https:\/\/www.mecidiyekoywebtasarim.com\/istanbulkriminalofis\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1173\/revisions\/1175"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mecidiyekoywebtasarim.com\/istanbulkriminalofis\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1174"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mecidiyekoywebtasarim.com\/istanbulkriminalofis\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1173"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mecidiyekoywebtasarim.com\/istanbulkriminalofis\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1173"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mecidiyekoywebtasarim.com\/istanbulkriminalofis\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1173"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}