&lt;div id="article-content" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial; font-size: 14px;">&lt;ul style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; list-style-type: square; font-size: 14px;">&lt;li style="box-sizing: border-box; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; margin-left: 20px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">Delphi Technologies opposed the registration of DEPLHI in Classes 1, 3 and 4 based on its earlier mark DELPHI&lt;/span>&lt;/li>&lt;li style="box-sizing: border-box; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; margin-left: 20px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">The board found that the goods covered by the application were similar and related to the goods/services covered by the earlier mark, as they were all used in the auto spare parts sector&lt;/span>&lt;/li>&lt;li style="box-sizing: border-box; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; margin-left: 20px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">‘Delphi’ has no meaning in Turkish and it was unlikely that this word would have been chosen as a trademark as a coincidence&lt;/span>&lt;/li>&lt;/ul>&lt;p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">In a recent decision, the Re-examination and Evaluation Board (‘the board’) of the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has found that the trademarks DEPLHI and DELPHI were similar and covered similar goods and services, and that the application for DEPLHI had been filed in bad faith.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">&lt;br>&lt;/strong>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">Background&lt;/strong>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">On 27 August 2021 a Turkish individual filed an application for the registration of the word mark DEPLHI in Classes 1, 3 and 4.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">Following the publication of the application in the&nbsp;&lt;em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Official Trademarks Bulletin&lt;/em>, the owner of the DELPHI trademarks, Delphi Technologies IP Limited, opposed the application in its entirety on the grounds of likelihood of confusion and bad faith.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">In its decision dated 17 May 2022 the Trademarks Department of the PTO rejected the opposition, concluding that there was no likelihood of confusion, including a likelihood of association, between the trademarks due to a lack of similarity between the goods and services covered by the trademarks, despite the similarity of the signs.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">The opponent appealed, requesting the re-examination of the opposition by the board.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">&lt;br>&lt;/strong>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">Appeal Decision&lt;/strong>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">On 13 October 2022 the board accepted the appeal in line with the legal grounds relied upon in the opposition.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">The board first conducted an examination of the likelihood of confusion ground and agreed with the Trademarks Department that there were visual and aural similarities between the opposed mark DEPLHI and the opponent’s DELPHI mark. Further, the board determined that the goods “chemicals used in industry, science, photography, agriculture, horticulture and forestry” in Class 1 and “industrial oils, greases, cutting fluids, dust absorbing, wetting and binding compositions; liquid and gas fuels: petrol, diesel oil, liquified petroleum gas, natural gas, fuel oil and their non-chemical additives”in Class 4 were similar and related to the goods and services covered by the opponent’s registration in Classes 7, 9, 12, 35, 37 and 42, as they were all used in the automotive spare parts sector. Considering that the goods covered by the trademarks were similar, the board concluded that there was a likelihood of confusion between the marks under Article 6/1 of the IP Code (No 6769) as regards the above-mentioned goods.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">The board then examined the opponent’s bad-faith claim. It determined that ‘Delphi’ has no meaning in Turkish and that it was unlikely that this word would have been chosen as a trademark coincidentally. This word is registered as a trademark abroad and in Turkey in the name of the opponent; the DELPHI trademark is used in Turkey by the opponent in the automotive spare parts sector and it is known in the relevant sector to a reasonable degree. Taking into account that the goods covered by the application were similar and related to the goods covered by the opponent’s trademarks, the board concluded that the subject application had not been filed in good faith.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">&lt;br>&lt;/strong>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">Comment&lt;/strong>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">The board’s decision is valuable in that it took all factors into account in assessing bad faith, namely:&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;ul style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; list-style-type: square; font-size: 14px;">&lt;li style="box-sizing: border-box; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; margin-left: 20px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">the similarity of the trademarks;&lt;/span>&lt;/li>&lt;li style="box-sizing: border-box; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; margin-left: 20px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">the similarity of the goods;&lt;/span>&lt;/li>&lt;li style="box-sizing: border-box; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; margin-left: 20px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">the specifics of the business sector at issue;&lt;/span>&lt;/li>&lt;li style="box-sizing: border-box; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; margin-left: 20px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">the distinctive characteristics of the opponent’s trademark; and&lt;/span>&lt;/li>&lt;li style="box-sizing: border-box; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; margin-left: 20px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">its reputation within the sector.&lt;/span>&lt;/li>&lt;/ul>&lt;p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">The scope of the examination and the detailed reasoning provided in the decision clearly demonstrate the quality of the assessment made by the board.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">Further, the decision shows the importance of introducing all relevant material facts and conditions specific to the case, as they may support each other in reaching a bad-faith decision in a given case.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;hr style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;/div>&lt;p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial; line-height: 2; font-size: 14px;">&lt;em style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">First published by WTR in 26.01.2023.&lt;/em>&lt;/p>

In a recent decision, the Re-examination and Evaluation Board (‘the board’) of the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has found that the trademarks DEPLHI and DELPHI were similar and covered similar goods and services, and that the application for DEPLHI had been filed in bad faith.

DELPHI v DEPLHI: PTO’s Decision Sheds Light on Interpretation of Bad Faith

Uğur Aktekin joined the firm in 1999 and has been a partner since 2003. He is co-chair of the firm’s intellectual property practice and the technology, media and telecom industry practice.Uğur’s Intellectual Property practice focuses on trademarks, designs and copyrights.He advises on implementing IP protection and enforcement strategies and portfolio management, representing clients before the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office, as well as cancellation, infringement and other court actions and domain name ADR proceedings, filing for interlocutory and precautionary injunctions, negotiating and drafting co-existence, settlement and licensing agreements.Uğur has been involved in numerous anti-piracy campaigns, civil litigation, criminal raids and litigation involving software copyrights, cinematographic and musical copyrights, cartoon character copyrights, architectural copyrights, databases and television film formats.His TMT practice covers media, advertising, consumer, internet, technology licensing, information technologies, computer software, computer games, data protection, data privacy and security.He advises on all aspects of advertising and media laws, including clearance of advertisements, contracts, promotions and sweepstakes to various local and multinational companies primarily on food and beverages, technology, media, telecom and entertainment sectors.Uğur also advises on data protection legislation, website privacy policies and terms of use under Turkish law. Practice Areas &amp; Work DepartmentIntellectual PropertyTrademarks and DesignsCopyrightsIP ProsecutionTechnology, Media and Telecom LanguagesEnglishTurkish MembershipsInternational Federation of Intellectual Property Attorneys of Turkey (FICPI Turkey), Founder and Former PresidentInternational Bar Association (IBA)Association Internationale pour la Protection de la Propriété Intellectuelle (AIPPI)International Federation of Intellectual Property Attorneys (FICPI)International Trademark Association (INTA), Data Protection CommitteeInternational Technology Law Association (ITECHLAW)Global Advertising Lawyers Alliance (GALA)Patent and Trademark Attorneys’ Association of Turkey (PEM)

Gün + Partners was founded in 1986 and is one of the largest law firms in Turkey with 13 partners and over 70 lawyers. The firm is based in Istanbul and provides transactional, advisory, and dispute management services to local and international companies throughout Turkey and assists clients worldwide through its established network of correspondents and contacts.The firm's core areas of expertise are corporate and commercial, dispute management, and intellectual property. It represents clients in numerous industry sectors with a particular focus on life sciences, insurance and reinsurance, energy, construction and real estate, logistics, technology, media and telecoms, automotive, FMCG, chemicals and the defence industries.

Gün + Partners

Partner

Practice Areas &amp; Work Department Intellectual PropertyTrademarks and DesignsAnti-CounterfeitingCopyrightsIP Prosecution LanguagesEnglishTurkish MembershipsIstanbul Bar Association

Associate

&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">The traditional sanctions that the Advertisement Board used to apply were ordering administrative fine, correction decision and precautionary or temporary suspension decisions against advertisements which violate the legal rules for advertisements broadcasted in any media including internet. In addition to these, the Advertisement Board has been authorized to block access to online broadcasts or contents which are found to violate the advertising rules through amendments introduced to Consumer Protection Law in April 2022. In case the violating content may not be blocked due to technical reasons or the violation may not be remedied by blocking access to the relevant content, the Advertisement Board is also authorized to block access to the entire website.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">The Advertisement Board strictly scrutinizes online advertisements and exercises this power when applicable. For instance, in December 2022 the Board examined advertisements published on the social media account of the company promoting legal services offered by the company and directing consumers to the company’s website and issued cease order regarding the advertisements and blocked access to the entire website.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Another amendment introduced by the amending law is in terms of the monetary sanctions to be imposed by the Advertisement Board against advertisements broadcasted through satellite radio and TV channels.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Until recently, the Consumer Protection Law in relation to the administrative fine to be imposed against violating advertisements has regulated the fines for advertisements broadcasted through national and regional television/radio channels besides the internet, text messages, and other media like outdoor advertising. The advertisements broadcasted through satellite radio and TV channels were not explicitly regulated. However, given the increased number of television broadcasts over satellite in recent years, the lack of an explicit rule in the Consumer Protection Law regarding advertisements broadcasted through satellite television and radio, caused hesitation about whether internet penalties or penalties applied to violations made through national and regional radio / TV broadcasts should be applied. In this direction, the amendments ruled that the administrative fine applied against advertisements broadcasted through regional radio channels can be applied to advertisements broadcasted through satellite radio broadcasts and that the administrative fine applied against advertisements broadcasted through the internet can be applied to advertisements broadcasted through satellite TV broadcasts.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">The Advertisement Board expanded its powers with respect to advertisement of counterfeit goods as well. In this respect, the Board had previously evaluated that advertising of counterfeit products that were sold and advertised as genuine products on various websites and social media accounts is misleading and against the principle requiring that claims included in advertisements must be accurate and provable and imposed administrative fine against these advertisements.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">The Board followed this approach in 2022 as well. In its decision rendered in September 2022, it determined that footwear products of well-known brands which have high reputation before the consumers were offered for sale on the websites of the company subject to surveillance, and those products were advertised and promoted as genuine products on these websites. However, the products delivered to the consumers upon order were low-quality products in terms of the material used, their appearance and features, whereby the delivered products were found to be counterfeit products. Therefore, the Advertisement Board has evaluated that the claims regarding the authenticity of the products in these advertisements available on the specified websites do not reflect the truth and exploit the lack of information of the consumers and issued cease order and administrative monetary fine.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">The Board rendered a similar decision in November 2022 where the Board found it misleading and contradictory to the fair competition principles that the company subject to surveillance created a false impression as if it were associated with a well-known electronics company by using the trade name, logo, and visuals of that company although the company had no kind of contractual relationship with the electronics company such as distributorship, authorized service relationship or a dealership agreement. The Board issued cease order with respect to the advertisements.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">It is important that the Advertisement Board carries out administrative surveillance on the advertising of counterfeit products and implements administrative sanctions against them. This approach refers to effective, multi-legged supervision which affirms that the trademark right holders can alternatively resort to administrative remedies, in addition to judicial remedies against trademark infringement.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>

The traditional sanctions that the Advertisement Board used to apply were ordering administrative fine, correction decision and precautionary or temporary suspension decisions against advertisements which violate the legal rules for advertisements broadcasted in any media including internet.

Advertisement Board’s Expanded Power: Blocking Access

&lt;ul style="list-style-type: square;">&lt;li style="margin-left: 20px; text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Cumulative protection is no longer available in light of a recent Court of Cassation decision&lt;/span>&lt;/li>&lt;li style="margin-left: 20px; text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Trademarks are protected under the IP Code, but “name[s], title[s] or trademark[s]” are not covered by the unfair competition provisions under the new Commercial Code&lt;/span>&lt;/li>&lt;li style="margin-left: 20px; text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">The decision will have a serious impact on pending cases&lt;/span>&lt;/li>&lt;/ul>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">In a recent decision that challenges longstanding precedents, the Court of Cassation has ruled that, in cases where trademark infringement has been found, it is no longer possible to accept that the same infringing act also creates unfair competition.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong>Background&lt;/strong>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">In a civil court action involving pharmaceutical companies, the plaintiff argued that the defendant used a mark that was confusingly similar to its registered trademarks for the same or similar goods in Class 5. The plaintiff requested:&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;ul style="list-style-type: square;">&lt;li style="margin-left: 20px; text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">a determination of trademark infringement and unfair competition;&lt;/span>&lt;/li>&lt;li style="margin-left: 20px; text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">the prevention and cessation of the defendant’s infringing use; and&lt;/span>&lt;/li>&lt;li style="margin-left: 20px; text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">a preliminary injunction order to prevent the defendant from using the infringing mark until the finalisation of the case.&lt;/span>&lt;/li>&lt;/ul>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">The first-instance court accepted the plaintiff’s requests and issued a preliminary injunction order at the beginning of the case to prevent the defendant’s infringing use. The court then decided to uphold the trademark infringement claims, but dismissed the unfair competition claims on the grounds that the plaintiff should not benefit from the protection afforded by the unfair competition provisions in addition to that afforded by the trademark infringement provisions.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Both parties appealed the decision before the Regional Court of Appeals. The Regional Court of Appeals decided to accept the plaintiff’s appeal on the ground that the defendant’s acts created unfair competition, because the defendant continued to use the infringing mark despite the refusal of its application for registration of that mark by the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office. The refusal was based on the ground that the defendant’s trademark application was similar to the plaintiff’s registered trademarks to the extent that it created a likelihood of confusion, and was incompatible with the good-faith principle under the Turkish Commercial Code. The defendant appealed to the Court of Cassation.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong>Court of Cassation Decision&lt;/strong>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">In a decision dated 14 March 2022 (No 2019/5189 E 2022/1852 K), the Court of Cassation overruled the decision of the Regional Court of Appeals on the ground that, as trademarks are protected under the Intellectual Property Code (No 6769) (and the former Decree Law No 556 on the Protection of Trademarks), the trademark infringement acts were protected cumulatively under the relevant articles of the Commercial Code No 6762; the relevant article of the Commercial Code No 6102 (‘&lt;/span>&lt;strong>new Commercial Code&lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">’) states that acts that lead to confusion with the goods, work products, activities or businesses of others creates unfair competition, but does not include the protection of a “name, title or trademark” on purpose, as trademarks are already protected by the trademark infringement provisions of the IP Code. Therefore, it is not necessary to also protect trademarks under the unfair competition provisions under the new Commercial Code.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Following the decision of the Court of Cassation, the case file was returned to the Regional Court of Appeals. The latter decided to comply with the decision of the Court of Cassation, upheld the case only in terms of the trademark infringement claims and dismissed the unfair competition claims. The parties did not appeal the decision and the case was recently finalised.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong>Comment&lt;/strong>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">The fact that the Court of Cassation changed its longstanding precedents has come as a surprise to practitioners: the court stated that it is no longer possible to maintain its previous precedents on the cumulative protection afforded by the trademark infringement and unfair competition provisions, as trademarks are protected under the IP Code (and the former Decree Law) and “name[s], title[s] or trademark[s]” are not covered by the scope of the unfair competition provisions under the new Commercial Code. It is noteworthy that the new code entered into force in 2012; however, until recently the Court of Cassation had upheld all decisions where such cumulative protection had been accepted in similar cases. In addition, there has been no recent change in the legislation that would explain the Court of Cassation’s decision.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">The finalised decision will have a serious impact on pending cases. Some courts have already started to dismiss unfair competition claims in similar infringement actions on the ground that cumulative protection is no longer available in light of the Court of Cassation’s decision. Arguably, this decision cannot be considered as a precedent in all cases where trademark infringement and unfair competition claims are brought together, and there needs to be a distinction between these cases - even though the Court of Cassation did not make one in its reasoning.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">For instance, if there is infringing use of a registered trademark on a product, but the product packaging is not similar to the rights owner’s products, then the infringing use should be prevented under the IP Code. It is thus sufficient to bring only trademark infringement claims; otherwise, the courts will likely dismiss the unfair competition claims in light of the Court of Cassation’s recent decision.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">However, in cases where the defendant is using a similar trade dress, or discrediting or making false statements/publications about the plaintiff or its products, activities or business, the protection afforded by the unfair competition provisions should still be available, in addition to that afforded by the trademark infringement provisions, because such acts would fall within the scope of the unfair competition provisions under the Commercial Code.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">In light of the above, before initiating a civil court action based on trademark infringement and unfair competition, the possible existence of additional factor(s) that may be considered as acts of unfair competition which do not fall within the scope of the IP Code should be assessed carefully.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;hr>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;em>First published by WTR in 17.03.2023.&lt;/em>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>

In a recent decision that challenges longstanding precedents, the Court of Cassation has ruled that, in cases where trademark infringement has been found, it is no longer possible to accept that the same infringing act also creates unfair competition.

Court of Cassation Overturns Longstanding Precedents on Cumulative Protection Afforded by Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition Provisions

&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">Pharmaceutical prices in Turkey have always been one of the most controversial issues. The prices of medicines that are to be marketed are set under the Decision on Pricing of Human Medicinal Products (“&lt;/span>&lt;strong style="font-size: 14px;">Decision&lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">”) and the Communiqué on the Pricing of Human Medicinal Products (“&lt;/span>&lt;strong>Communiqué&lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">”) of September 29, 2017, issued by the Ministry, which is vested with the competencies to regulate this area.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">The Decision provides a reference pricing system, whereby the least-expensive ex-factory price in one of the listed EU countries for the relevant product is taken as the ex-factory price in Turkey. The currency is then converted into Turkish liras; however, this transaction is done at a fixed value every year so that it is not affected by fluctuations in the exchange rates. Thus, the exchange rate applied to the reference price taken from the respective EU country is fixed for one year, and the price reached is considerably lower than the current exchange rate.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">With the Decision entered into force in 2017, the rate was determined as 60% of the average euro value of the previous year. Accordingly, the main rule is that the Price Evaluation Commission gathers in the first 45 days of each year and announces the value of euro 1 based on a calculation of 60% of the average value in the previous year.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">According to this rule, on February 14, 2022, the exchange rate to be used in the pricing of medicines was set as TL 6.2925. However, due to the rapid change in the exchange rate in 2022, with the provisional article added to the Decision, on July 8, 2022, the value of 1 Euro was increased by 25%, and the new exchange rate was set as TRY 7.8656. Subsequently, on December 14, 2022, the value of 1 Euro in Turkish Lira to be used in the pricing of pharmaceutical products for human use was increased by 36.77% to TL 10.7577 in December 2022.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">For 2023, it was stated that this last amount would continue to be applied and that the Price Evaluation Commission would not announce a new value in the first 45 days of the year. However, although it has not been regulated in the legislation yet, one can expect an increase to be made again in 2023 due to the fluctuations in the current exchange rate.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>

Pharmaceutical prices in Turkey have always been one of the most controversial issues. The prices of medicines that are to be marketed are set under the Decision on Pricing of Human Medicinal Products and the Communiqué on the Pricing of Human Medicinal Products of September 29, 2017, issued by the Ministry, which is vested with the competencies to regulate this area.

Pricing of Pharmaceuticals and the Fixed Exchange Rate

&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">The grounds for the invalidation of a patent within the scope of Industrial Property Law No. 6769 are listed per the numerus clausus principle. The concept of plausibility – which has been the subject of numerous evaluations, especially by the European Patent Office (“EPO”) and frequently debated in academic circles in recent years – has not yet found a place within the scope of any legal regulation in Turkey. Moreover, there is no consensus on the Turkish wording that meets this concept as a legal term.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">However, the concept of plausibility has started to be argued by the plaintiffs in Turkish invalidity proceedings and has been the subject of important conclusions by the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal within the scope of application No. G 2/21, so the place of the concept of plausibility in Turkish legal practice must be scrutinized.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">Plausibility can be defined as the ability to demonstrate the technical effect claimed by the invention credibly and convincingly with appropriate evidence to be submitted or to deduce this situation from the state of the art or common general knowledge to avoid speculative patents that can be produced at the desk (&lt;/span>&lt;em>Türk Patent Hukuku, Uğur Çolak, Adalet Yayınevi, Ankara, 2022;&nbsp;A Practitioner’s Guide to European Patent Law, Paul England, Hart Publishing, London, 2019&lt;/em>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">).&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">The requirement of plausibility, which is not defined as one of the invalidation grounds in the law, is particularly an issue concerning pharmaceutical patents. However, not all the test data of clinical studies may be obtained by the patent application date due to the long duration of efficacy tests and their complicated processes.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Therefore, considering the necessity of making a patent application as soon as possible to avoid any loss of rights, there are issues around how much data indicating that the invention is applicable and working should be included in the patent application and to what extent post-published evidence can be used.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">In other words, the concept of plausibility can be regarded primarily as a prohibition of speculative patent applications which do not disclose a technical effect of a chemical substance and/or disclose a technical effect which is not normally expected.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Although the lack of this requirement is not one of the invalidation grounds stipulated in Turkish legislation, in the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights or the European Patent Convention, to which Turkey is a party, it can be alleged in invalidation actions by asserting in the context of “sufficiency of disclosure” or “lack of inventive step”.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Indeed, where the concept of plausibility has been used as an invalidation ground before the intellectual and industrial rights law courts, the allegations on this issue were included under both headings.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong>EPO Case Law on Plausibility&lt;/strong>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">The issue of plausibility is also associated with inventive step and sufficiency of disclosure in the case law created before the EPO. Although given that the word “credible” was used instead of “plausible” in Case T 939/92 (AgrEvo), there are opinions claiming that this decision, which concluded that a technical effect should be reasonably predictable and credible, was the first to use the threshold of plausibility.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">However, according to the contrary views, Case T 1329/04 (John Hopkins) was the first to establish the plausibility threshold in explaining that it was at least made plausible that the claimed invention could be carried out.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">In contrast to these cases, Case T 609/02 (Salk) concerned the plausibility threshold about the sufficiency of disclosure, and it was concluded that there was a requirement to make the existence of a cause-and-effect relationship plausible.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Finally, in a more recent case, T 488/16 (Dasatinib/BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB), the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal clarified that even though there is not always a requirement to have experimental data in an application, the technical problem must at least shown to be plausibly solved at the filing date.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">The plausibility issue also raises a discussion regarding filing post-published documents. It is seen that there are many decisions of EPO Technical Boards of Appeal (see, in particular, T 578/06) addressing the plausibility issue together with evidence published after the date of filing. The majority of the decisions stress that post-published evidence can be considered on the condition that a certain effect was plausible at the filing date of the patent application. In that situation, post-published documents can be accepted.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong>Case Law of Turkish Courts Regarding Plausibility Principle&lt;/strong>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Given that the concept of plausibility is only just gaining currency in Turkish law and that it has not been put forward as a sound argument by plaintiff parties, it has not yet been included in any high court case law and has not been evaluated in any decision by a court of first instance.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Indeed, the plaintiff claimed in a recent patent invalidation action that the subject patent was not plausible in the context of insufficient disclosure. However, the plausibility requirement was erroneously defined because of the presence of all the evidence in the patent document that directly and undoubtedly proved that the technical problem had been resolved. However, according to the EPO’s practices, for example, the submission of in vitro test results may be sufficient to make the solution to the technical problem foreseen in the patent plausible. In this respect, since the plaintiff could not prove its claim in accordance with the general principles of the law of proof, the court of first instance concluded that the invention was entirely and sufficiently disclosed to allow the implementation of the invention by the technical expert. No evaluation was made regarding the plaintiff’s plausibility argument; therefore, no steps were taken to form case law on plausibility.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong>Unifying EPO Case Law Will Be Instructive to Turkish Courts&lt;/strong>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">At the point reached in the practice of intellectual property law today, it is not possible to talk about advanced plausibility arguments having been put forward or argue that case law can be used as a criterion in the plausibility evaluations to be made by the courts has been established.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">However, the decision to be issued regarding the G 2/21 application by the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal following the oral hearing held on November 24 2022, is expected to bring about essential standards regarding the requirement of plausibility and addresses important questions about whether post-published documents should be taken into account in the examination of plausibility, and will have significant repercussions in the patent world. It would not be wrong to say that the effects of this decision will be seen in Turkey as well.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">While no case law can be taken as a precedent in national legal practice given that Turkey is a party to the European Patent Convention, in our opinion, the G 2/21 decision will help to establish a uniform approach to applications by constituting a direct precedent for Turkish patent law.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">The industry is very excited to see the written decision of the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal, which will bring enlightenment to pending disputes in different types of jurisdictions.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>

The concept of plausibility – which has been the subject of numerous evaluations, especially by the European Patent Office (“EPO”) and frequently debated in academic circles in recent years – has not yet found a place within the scope of any legal regulation in Turkey.

“Plausibility” in Turkish Patent Law and Its Impact on Invalidation Proceedings

&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">For an extended period, the pharmaceutical industry needed a unique model of reimbursement where its conditions could be set together through negotiation with the SSI, and the regular price and reimbursement rules did not apply to innovative products.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">With the enactment of the Social Security and General Health Insurance Law numbered 6552 in September 2014, alternative reimbursement models also became an essential topic in the Turkish healthcare industry. The complementary provisions introduced with the Regulation on the Alternative Reimbursement of Pharmaceuticals, published in February 2016, allowed companies and the SSI to benefit from discussing the terms and conditions of an alternative reimbursement model for particular products. It was expected that alternative reimbursement models, in which the SSI will enter a direct contractual relationship with pharmaceutical companies, will ultimately allow patients to access innovative pharmaceuticals faster. However, nowadays, these models also appear to control pharmaceutical prices.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">In addition, with the conclusion of one of the actions filed against specific provisions of the Regulation on the Alternative Reimbursement of Pharmaceuticals, some articles were annulled on the grounds of procedural deficiency, as the SSI issued the regulation without receiving the opinion of the Ministry. Since the entire text is not the subject of the action, only some of the provisions were brought before the court, and essentially the entire Regulation is still in force, including the article of the law on which the alternative reimbursement models are based.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Following the annulment decision, the SSI was expected to update the Regulation on the Alternative Reimbursement of Pharmaceuticals by duly re-publishing the annulled articles. Instead, the SSI published the new Regulation on the Reimbursement of Pharmaceuticals, including the articles that will update the principle of confidentiality of the discount rates applied in these alternative models. In this context, the rule regarding confidentiality, implemented with the Alternative Reimbursement Regulation, has been re-introduced with the amendment made in the Pharmaceutical Reimbursement Regulation. However, it is unclear whether the Alternative Reimbursement Commission will be convened or the pharmaceutical companies will make new reimbursement agreements with the SSI with confidential and special discounted prices. It is thought that the elections, to be held in 2023, also play a role in how the implementation will continue in this issue, which is highly critical for the country’s economy and companies.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>

For an extended period, the pharmaceutical industry needed a unique model of reimbursement where its conditions could be set together through negotiation with the SSI, and the regular price and reimbursement rules did not apply to innovative products.

Market Access - Alternative Reimbursement Models

&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">5846 sayılı Fikir ve Sanat Eserleri Kanunu ("&lt;/span>&lt;strong style="font-size: 14px;">FSEK&lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">") uyarınca korunan eser türlerinden biri olan sinema eserleri “&lt;/span>&lt;em>her çeşit eşsiz, bilimsel, öğretici veya teknik mahiyette olan veya günlük olayları tespit eden filmler veya sinema filmleri gibi, tespit edildiği materyale bakılmaksızın, elektronik veya mekanik veya benzeri araçlarla gösterilebilen, sesli veya sessiz, birbiriyle ilişkili hareketli görüntüler dizisidir.&lt;/em>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">” şeklinde tanımlanmaktadır.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">FSEK uyarınca ortaya çıkarılan bir ürünün sinema eseri olarak kabul edilmesi ve koruma sağlanması için o eserin &lt;/span>&lt;strong style="font-size: 14px;">i)&lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;"> &lt;em>hususiyet&lt;/em>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">, &lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;strong style="font-size: 14px;">ii)&lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;"> &lt;em>belli bir düzeye kadar tamamlanmış olma&lt;/em>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;"> ve &lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;strong style="font-size: 14px;">iii)&lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;"> &lt;em>hareketli görüntüler dizisine sahip olma&lt;/em>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;"> şartlarını taşımalıdır. Bu şartları sağlayan bir eser, FSEK uyarınca sinema eseri kapsamında tanınan korumadan ve haklardan yararlanabilecektir.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">Eser sahibi, eseri meydana getiren kişidir ve bu kapsamda telif haklarının sahibidir. Sinema eserlerinde genellikle eser sahibi tek bir kişi olmayıp, yönetmen, senaryo yazarı, besteci, kostümcü, kameraman gibi birden çok kişinin katkısı bulunmaktadır. Farklı alanlarda ve birden çok kişinin yaratıcı katılımıyla ortaya gelen sinema eserlerinde tek bir kişinin eser sahibi ve/veya hak sahibi olarak belirlenmesi doğru bir yol olarak kabul edilmemektedir. Bu nedenle, sinema eserinin meydana getirilmesinde çalışan veya görev alan çeşitli kişilerin &lt;/span>&lt;em>birlikte bir eser sahipliği&lt;/em>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;"> söz konusu olacaktır.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">Sinema eserinin meydana gelmesinde eser sahibi ve/veya birlikte eser sahiplerinin yanı sıra eserin sahibinden başka eserin kamuoyuna ulaşmasını sağlayan kişi ve kuruluşların hakları ve bu hakların FSEK uyarınca korunması da söz konusudur.  İcracı sanatçılar, radyo ve televizyon kuruluşları/yayın kuruluşları ve film yapımcıları “&lt;/span>&lt;em>bağlantılı hak sahipleri&lt;/em>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">” olarak kabul edilmektedir. Eser sahibinin hakları ile bağlantılı haklar “eser sahibinin haklarına komşu haklar” ve “film yapımcılarının haklarından” oluşmaktadır. Komşu haklar kapsamında icracı sanatçılara birtakım haklar tanınmıştır.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">Bir fikir ve sanat eserini özgün biçimde yorumlayan, tanıtan, anlatan, söyleyen, çalan ve çeşitli biçimlerde icra eden gerçek kişiler &lt;/span>&lt;strong>icracı sanatçı&lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;"> olarak kabul edilmektedir. İcracı sanatçı eseri meydana getirmez ve aslında aracılık görevi görmektedir. Meydana getirilen eserin özgün bir icra ortaya koyarak o eserin kamuya yayılmasına hizmet etmektedir.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">Yargıtay kararlarında, icracı sanatçının bağlantılı hak sahibi sayılarak, belirli korumaya sahip olması için icranın özgün bir biçimde ifade edilmesi koşulu öngörülmektedir. Bu husus, “icranın “özgün bir biçimde” ifa edilmesidir. Bu bakımdan, bir sinema eserinde rol alan kişilerin icracı sanatçı sıfatını kazanıp kazanamayacakları hususu Yargıtay 11. HD. 18/02/2017 tarihli 2016/5259 E. ve 2017/7348 sayılı kararında “&lt;/span>&lt;em>bu eserde rol alan kişilerin asıl ya da yardımcı oyuncu olup olmadıklarından ziyade icranın “özgün bir biçimde” gerçekleştirilip gerçekleştirilmediği dikkate alınarak&lt;/em>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">” şeklinde açıklanmaktadır.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">İcracı sanatçı bir bakıma sarf ettiği fikri çalışma ile eserin yaratılmasına ve meydana getirilmesine değil, yayılmasına hizmet etmektedir. Bu kapsamda eserin yayılmasına aracılık eden ve özgün bir icra ortaya koyan icracı sanatçının, aynı eser sahibinin olduğu gibi FSEK uyarınca korunan hakları bulunmaktadır. İcracı sanatçıya tanınan bu haklar özetle aşağıda sayılmaktadır.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;ul style="list-style-type: square;">&lt;li style="margin-left: 20px; text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">İcraları ile ilgili olarak icranın sahibi olarak tanıtılmalarını isteme ve kendi itibarlarını zedeleyecek şekilde icraların tahrifini önleme hakkı,&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/li>&lt;li style="margin-left: 20px; text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">İcranın tespiti, bu tespitin çoğaltılmasına, satılmasına, dağıtılmasına, kiralanmasına ve ödünç verilmesine, işaret, ses ve/veya görüntü nakline yarayan araçlarla umuma iletimine ve yeniden iletimine ve temsiline izin verme veya yasaklama hakkı,&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/li>&lt;li style="margin-left: 20px; text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">Yurt içinde henüz satışa çıkmamış veya başka yollarla dağıtılmamış tespit edilmiş icralarının, aslı veya çoğaltılmış nüshalarının satış yoluyla veya diğer yollarla dağıtılması hususunda izin verme veya yasaklama hakkı,&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/li>&lt;li style="margin-left: 20px; text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">Tespit edilmiş icrasının veya çoğaltılmış nüshalarının satışı veya diğer biçimlerde umuma dağıtımına veya sunulmasına ve gerçek kişilerin seçtikleri yer ve zamanda icrasına ulaşılmasını sağlamak suretiyle umuma iletimine izin verme veya yasaklama hakkı,&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/li>&lt;li style="margin-left: 20px; text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">Haklarını uygun bir bedel karşılığında sözleşme ile yapımcıya devredebilme hakkı.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/li>&lt;/ul>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">Manevi hakların devri söz konusu olmayacağından icracı sanatçının manevi haklarının devri de söz konusu değildir. Yapımcıya yalnızca bu hakların kullanım yetkisini devredebilecektir. İcracı sanatçıya ait olan mali hakların ise, devri mümkündür ve icracı sanatçı bu hakları malvarlığından çıkarabilir, devredebilir.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">FSEK madde 48 uyarınca taraflar eser üzerindeki mali haklara ilişkin yapılacak sözleşmeleri yer, süre ve içerik bakımından sınırlı veya sınırsız bir şekilde yapabilmektedirler. Bu madde bağlantılı hak sahibi kabul edilen icracı sanatçılar için de uygulama alanı bulmaktadır. Bu kapsamda, icracı sanatçı yapacağı sözleşmelerde mali hakların devrini, şeklini ve süresini dilediği gibi belirleyebilmektedir. Ancak uygulamada, çoğunlukla icracı sanatçıların mali hakların herhangi bir sınırlama olmadan yapımcıya devredildiğine rastlanmaktadır. Bu şekilde de sinema yapımcısı, söz konusu sinema eseri üzerindeki bütün işlemleri ve tasarrufları tek başına yapabilmektedir. Belirtmek gerekir ki icracı sanatçı tarafından verilen izin ve yapılan sözleşme FSEK madde 52 hükümlerine uygun şekilde yapılmalıdır. Mali haklara ilişkin yapılan sözleşme yazılı olmalı ve devredilen hakların ayrı ayrı gösterilmesi gerekmektedir.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">İcracı sanatçıların bu hakları kazanabilmesi için söz konusu icrayı gerçekleştirmesi gerekmektedir. İcranın gerçekleştirilmesi için ise icracı sanatçının eser sahibinden onay alması gerekmektedir. Uygulamada sıklıkla karşılaşılan birden fazla kişinin eser sahibi olduğu durumlarda, her eser sahibinden ayrı izin alınması gerekmektedir. Eser sahibinin izin vermesi sonucunda, icracı sanatçı eser üzerinde aslen iktisap ettiği, mutlak haklara sahip olacaktır.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">Eserin icrasında birden fazla icracı sanatçı olduğu durumlarda ise, icracı sanatçılar bu haklara birlikte sahip olurlar ve bu hakların kullanımına ilişkin aralarında herhangi bir kişiyi yetkili kılmadıkları sürece haklarını kural olarak birlikte kullanabilirler. Ancak, icracı sanatçıların haklarına tecavüz edildiği durumda, her bir icracı sanatçı tek başına hareket edebilecektir.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">İcracı sanatçıların bağlantılı hakları, Komşu Haklar Yönetmeliği’nde de belirtildiği üzere, icranın ilk tespit edildiği tarihten başlayarak yetmiş (70) yıllık boyunca devam etmektedir. Eğer tespit yapılmamışsa yetmiş (70) yıllık bu süre icranın aleniyet kazandığı tarihten itibaren başlamaktadır.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">FSEK uyarınca sayılan icracı sanatçının bağlantılı hakları yalnızca Türkiye Cumhuriyeti vatandaşı olan icracı sanatçılara uygulanmaktadır ve bu hükümler Türkiye Cumhuriyeti vatandaşlarının yurtdışındaki icralarında da uygulanmaktadır. Bununla birlikte, icracı sanatçı hangi ülke vatandaşı olursa olsun eğer icra Türkiye sınırları içinde gerçekleşiyorsa, yine FSEK hükümlerine tabii olacaktır.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">Eser sahibinin haklarının korunması için tanınan tecavüzün ref’i, tecavüzün men’i ve tazminat davalarına ilişkin hükümler, icracı sanatçılara tanınan bağlantılı hakların korunmasında da kullanılmaktadır.&lt;/span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;/span>&lt;/p>

5846 sayılı Fikir ve Sanat Eserleri Kanunu uyarınca korunan eser türlerinden biri olan sinema eserleri “her çeşit eşsiz, bilimsel, öğretici veya teknik mahiyette olan veya günlük olayları tespit eden filmler veya sinema filmleri gibi, tespit edildiği materyale bakılmaksızın, elektronik veya mekanik veya benzeri araçlarla gösterilebilen, sesli veya sessiz, birbiriyle ilişkili hareketli görüntüler dizisidir.” şeklinde tanımlanmaktadır.

Sinema Eserlerinde İcracı Sanatçıların Bağlantılı Hakları

&lt;p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Although there is no explicit provision in Turkish Law for the acceptance of the ongoing opposition or appeal proceedings before the European Patent Office (“EPO”) as a “pending issue” due to the principle of procedural economy, in practice, pending issue decisions may be given by the Civil Courts of Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights according to the particular circumstances. As Turkey is one of the signatory countries to the European Patent Convention, upon the issuance of a revocation decision regarding a European patent, the patent’s validation before TÜRKPATENT is also revoked. Therefore, the revocation decisions rendered by the EPO are binding for Turkey. In addition, based on the principle of procedural economy set out in Article 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”), which governs the proceedings, and taking into account that EPO decisions are also binding and the EPO may revoke the patent, it may be decided to postpone the proceedings before the national court to avoid unnecessary examination and workload. Since there is no specific provision in Turkish Law on the obligation to hold the EPO proceedings as a pending issue, the courts decide on whether to hold the EPO proceedings as a pending issue by considering the stage of the EPO proceedings, the type of the action, and the balance of interests among the parties.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">However, considering the length of the EPO proceedings, it is necessary to consider the balance of interests among the parties in this process. In this context, especially considering that the patent protection period is limited to 20 years and there is no regulation extending this period in Turkish Law, if there is a request from the parties, it is essential to decide on provisional legal protection measures to prevent the damages that may arise due to the duration of the proceedings.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Indeed, the Regional Court of Appeal issued a precedent-setting decision emphasizing this importance. In an infringement and counter-invalidation action, the court of first instance decided to wait for the outcome of the EPO appeal process because the opposition process regarding the EPO patent has been concluded, but the appeal proceedings are still ongoing. The court rejected the preliminary injunction request filed by the patentee to compensate for the loss of rights during the waiting period of the EPO process because the EPO appeal and objection processes directly concern the infringement action, and the infringement action will affect the decision of the court. The patentee appealed this decision which was found unfair and unlawful on the grounds that the EPO appeal proceedings were concluded in favor of the patentee, the experts appointed by the court determined the patent infringement, the patent protection period is limited, and cannot be extended. There is no need to wait for this process to issue an injunction.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">The District Court, deeming the plaintiff’s requests appropriate, ruled that&nbsp;&lt;em style="box-sizing: border-box;">“Although it is understood that the request for a preliminary injunction was rejected due to the pending EPO appeal proceedings,&lt;/em>&nbsp;&lt;em style="box-sizing: border-box;">holding the process a pending matter does not constitute an obstacle for the evaluation of the request for a preliminary injunction.”&lt;/em>&nbsp;Accordingly, the District Court, by noting that the request for a preliminary injunction should be evaluated while waiting for the conclusion of the EPO appeal proceedings to protect the balance of interests among the parties at this stage of the case, revoked the decision of the court of first instance that rejected the request for a preliminary injunction.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">This decision has once again emphasized the purpose of the preliminary injunction to prevent the emergence of damages that occurred during the trial that are difficult or impossible to compensate for later on. Furthermore, this decision makes it clear that the requests for a preliminary injunction should be decided on a priority basis to protect the patent rights of patentees in an effective and timely manner; holding the EPO process a pending issue should not be an obstacle to the consideration of preliminary injunction requests. This decision sets an example for cases where the EPO opposition and appeal process is awaited to be finalized to prevent the parties from losing their rights for years in prolonged cases due to the pending issue.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>

Although there is no explicit provision in Turkish Law for the acceptance of the ongoing opposition or appeal proceedings before the European Patent Office as a “pending issue” due to the principle of procedural economy, in practice, pending issue decisions may be given by the Civil Courts of Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights according to the particular circumstances.

The Need for an Injunction in Cases Where the EPO Proceeding is held as a Pending Issue

&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">Cinematographic works, which are one of the types of works protected in accordance with the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works numbered 5846 (“&lt;/span>&lt;strong>IPL&lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">”), are defined as “works such as films of an artistic, scientific, educational or technical nature or films recording daily events or movies, that consist of a series of related moving images with or without sound and which, regardless of the material in which they are fixed, can be shown by the use of electronic or mechanical or similar devices”.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">In order for a product produced in accordance with the IPL to be accepted and to be protected as a cinematographic work, that work must meet the conditions of &lt;/span>&lt;strong style="font-size: 14px;">i)&lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;"> &lt;em>bearing the character of its author&lt;/em>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">, &lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;strong style="font-size: 14px;">ii)&lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;"> &lt;em>being completed to a certain level&lt;/em>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">, and &lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;strong style="font-size: 14px;">iii)&lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;"> &lt;em>having a series of moving images&lt;/em>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">. A work that has these conditions will be able to benefit from the protection and rights granted within the scope of the cinematographic work in the IPL.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">The author is the person who created the work and also, is the owner of the copyright. In cinematographic works, since there are different contributions from multiple people such as a director, screenwriter, composer, costumer, and cameraman, it is usually not a single person who owns the work. In cinematographic works that have emerged in different fields and with the creative participation of multiple people, identifying a single person as the author and/or the right owner is not accepted as the correct way. For this reason, there will be &lt;/span>&lt;em>joint ownership of a work&lt;/em>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;"> by various people who work or take part in the creation of a cinematographic work.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">In the occurrence of a cinematographic work, persons and organizations that provide public access to the work have the rights as well as the author and/or joint authors and these rights are protected under the Intellectual Property Law. Performing artists, radio and television organizations/broadcasting organizations, and filmmakers are recognized as "&lt;/span>&lt;em>associated rights holders&lt;/em>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">”. The rights related to the rights of the author consist of “rights adjacent to the rights of the author” and “rights of producers”. Within the scope of neighboring rights, several rights have been granted to the performers.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">Real persons who interpret, introduce, explain, sing, play, and perform a work of thought and art in an original way are considered &lt;/span>&lt;strong>performers&lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">. The performer does not create the work and has the role of an intermediary. The performer serves to disseminate the created work to the public by presenting an original performance.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">   In the Supreme Court decisions, the condition of expressing the performance in a unique way is stipulated in order for the performer to be deemed the author and have certain protection. Meanly, the condition is the execution of the “&lt;/span>&lt;em style="font-size: 14px;">performing in a unique way&lt;/em>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">”. In this regard, the issue of whether people who act in a cinematographic work can earn the title of the performer is explained as “&lt;/span>&lt;em>taking into account whether the performance is performed in an 'original form' rather than whether the people involved in this work are the main or supporting performers&lt;/em>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">” within the scope of the Supreme Court decision numbered 2017/7348 and dated 18/02/2017.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">In a way, the performer serves not to create the work, but serves to spread the work with the intellectual work the performer expands. Therefore, the performer, who mediates the dissemination of the work and puts forward a unique performance, has the rights as the author, which are protected in accordance with IPL. These rights granted to the performer are briefly listed below.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;ul style="list-style-type: square;">&lt;li style="margin-left: 20px; text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">The right to request to be identified as the owner of the performance in relation to their performance and to prevent the falsification of the performances in a way that damages their own reputation,&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/li>&lt;li style="margin-left: 20px; text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">The right to authorize or prohibit the reproduction, sale, distribution, rental and lending, transmission and retransmission and representation of the performance by means of sign, sound and/or image transmission,&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/li>&lt;li style="margin-left: 20px; text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">The right to authorize or prohibit the distribution of the original or reproduced copies of the determined performances, which have not yet been put up for sale or distributed in other ways, by sale or by other means,&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/li>&lt;li style="margin-left: 20px; text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">The right to authorize or prohibit the sale or otherwise public distribution or presentation of its fixed performance or reproduced copies, and their transmission to the public, by ensuring that their performance is reached by natural persons at the place and time they choose,&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/li>&lt;li style="margin-left: 20px; text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">The right to transfer its rights to the producer with a contract in return for a reasonable price.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/li>&lt;/ul>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">Since there will be no transfer of moral rights, the performer’s moral rights will not be the subject of a transfer. The performer will only be able to transfer the authority to use these rights to the producer. The financial rights belonging to the cinematographic works are transferable and the performer can remove these rights from their assets and transfer them.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">According to Article 48 of the IPL, the parties can make agreements regarding the financial rights of the work in a limited or unlimited manner in terms of place, time, and content. This article also finds an area of ​​application for the performer who is considered to be the owners of related rights. Therefore, the performer can determine the transfer, form, and duration of financial rights in the contracts as he/she wishes. Having said that, in practice, it is often seen that the financial rights of performing are transferred to the producer without any limitation. With this, the movie producer can perform all the operations and save on the movie alone. It should be noted that the permission given by the performer and the contract must be made in accordance with the provisions of Article 52 of the IPL. The contract for financial rights must be in writing and the rights to be transferred must be shown separately in the contract.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">To gain these related rights, the performer is required to perform the work. In order the performance the work, the performer is required to obtain approval from the author of the work. In cases where more than one person is the author, which is frequently encountered in practice, the performer is required to obtain separate permission from each author. As a result of the permission of the author, the performer will have the non-derogable right to the work that the author originally acquired.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">In event that there is more than one performer in the performance of the work, the performers acquire these rights together and as a rule, they can use their rights together as long as they do not authorize any person among them to use these rights. However, in the event of violation of the performer’s rights, each performer has right to act alone regarding the violation.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">The related rights of performer artists for seventy (70) years, starting from the date of the first determination of the performance, as stated in the Regulation on Neighboring Rights. If no determination has been made, this period of seventy (70) years starts from the date that the work becomes public.    The related rights of the performer regulated in the IPL apply to only the citizens of the Republic of Turkey and these provisions are also applied to the performances abroad of the citizens of the Republic of Turkey. In addition to this, regardless of the nationality of the performer, if the performance takes place within the borders of Turkey, it will still be subject to the provisions of IPL.  The provisions regarding the cessation of infringement, prevention of infringement, and action for damages for the protection of the rights of the author also apply to the protection of the related rights granted to the performer.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>

Cinematographic works, which are one of the types of works protected in accordance with the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works numbered 5846, are defined as “works such as films of an artistic, scientific, educational or technical nature or films recording daily events or movies, that consist of a series of related moving images with or without sound and which, regardless of the material in which they are fixed, can be shown by the use of electronic or mechanical or similar devices”.

DELPHI v DEPLHI: PTO’s Decision Sheds Light on Interpretation of Bad Faith

Popular Articles on Intellectual Property

Latest Insights from Gün + Partners

DELPHI v DEPLHI: PTO’s Decision Sheds Light on Interpretation of Bad Faith

Popular Articles on Intellectual Property

Latest Insights from Gün + Partners

Subscribe to our newsletter