&lt;p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; 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;">The Communiqué (the “&lt;strong style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold;">Amending Communiqué&lt;/strong>”) published in the Official Gazette on November 8, 2022, extended the deadline provided under Provisional Article 1 of the Communiqué on the Procedures and Principles Regarding Implementation of Article 376 of the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6101 (the “&lt;strong style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold;">Implementation&lt;/strong>&lt;span>&nbsp;&lt;/span>&lt;strong style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold;">Communiqué&lt;/strong>”).&lt;/p>&lt;p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; 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;">The Implementation Communiqué was previously amended on December 26, 2020, and certain loss items were excluded from the calculation of capital loss or negative equity until January 1, 2023.&lt;/p>&lt;p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; 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;">The Ministry of Trade expressed on various occasions that the exception is foreseen as a temporary measure to protect the economic actors against the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. Although such impacts show signs of easing with the recovery of the Turkish economy and stabilized foreign exchange rates of the Turkish Lira, the Ministry prefers maintaining Provisional Article 1 of the Implementation Communiqué. This time, the application period has been extended until January 1, 2024.&nbsp;&lt;/p>&lt;p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; 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;">Accordingly, joint stock companies, limited liability companies and limited partnerships divided into shares will be able to exclude all the foreign exchange losses, and half of the expenses arising from leases, amortization, and personnel expenses accrued in 2020 and 2021 in the capital loss and negative equity calculation in their balance sheets until the end of the fiscal year 2023. Please refer to our&lt;span>&nbsp;&lt;/span>&lt;a href="https://gun.av.tr/insights/articles/amendments-to-the-communiqu%C3%A9-with-respect-to-capital-loss-and-negative-equity" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; color: rgb(0, 171, 223); text-decoration: none; font-weight: 400;" target="_blank">article&lt;/a>&lt;span>&nbsp;&lt;/span>for more information about the implementation of Article 376 of the Turkish Commercial Code.&lt;/p>

The Communiqué (the “Amending Communiqué”) published in the Official Gazette on November 8, 2022, extended the deadline provided under Provisional Article 1 of the Communiqué on the Procedures and Principles Regarding Implementation of Article 376 of the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6101 (the “Implementation Communiqué”).

Extension of the Deadline Regarding Amendments to the Communiqué With Respect to Capital Loss and Negative Equity

Görkem Bilgin has been with the firm since 2012 and became a partner in 2021. His practice is focused on corporate and M&amp;A, life sciences, energy and natural resources, and insurance and reinsurance practice areas.Görkem’s practice mainly concentrates on corporate and commercial law issues with a focus on merger and acquisitions and corporate governance issues. He has been involved in various M&amp;A transactions and advised foreign and Turkish companies on their joint ventures, drafted and negotiated SPAs, SHAs and JV agreements, conducted the due diligence processes, and prepared and re-structured numerous commercial agreements.Görkem also advises and represents clients from life sciences sector, especially multinational pharmaceutical and medical device companies in relation to their complex agreements and engagements with the authorities as well as their distributors and manufacturers.Görkem advises clients, both national and international, on Turkish energy and natural resources legislation, providing advisory services in the areas of energy law.&nbsp;Görkem assists insurance companies from the regulatory aspect, and he advises national and international insurance companies regarding the localization of the insurance and reinsurance policies in Turkey. Practice Areas &amp; Work DepartmentCorporate and M&amp;ALife SciencesEnergy and Natural ResourcesInsurance and ReinsuranceConstruction and Real Estate LanguagesEnglishTurkish MembershipsInternational Bar Association (IBA)

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 DepartmentCorporate and M&amp;AData Protection and PrivacyBusiness Crimes and Anti-CorruptionCompetitionTechnology, Media and Telecom LanguagesEnglishFrenchTurkish MembershipsIstanbul Bar AssociationGalatasaray Alumni Association

Associate

&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="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;">Denkleştirme
tazminatı, Yargıtay kararlarında “acentelik sözleşmesi sona erdikten sonra, bu
ilişkinin devamı boyunca acentenin kişisel gayretiyle yarattığı müşteri
çevresinden âkidinin halen yararlanması, acentenin ise yararlanmaması nedeniyle
uğradığı kaybın karşılığı” şeklinde tanımlanmıştır.&lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-size: 12px;">[1]&lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;"> 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret
Kanunu’nun (TTK) 122. maddesinde düzenlenen denkleştirme tazminatının
amacı, acentelik sözleşmesinin feshi nedeniyle, acentenin, belirli bir süre
pazarda faaliyette bulunacağına güvenerek yapmış olduğu reklam ve tanıtım
faaliyetleri ile pazar ve müşteri portföyü oluşturan, bu anlamda sözleşmenin
feshedilmesinden sonra dahi müvekkil firmanın yarar sağlamasına vesile olması
nedeniyle belli oranda tazminata hak kazanması suretiyle hakkaniyetin ihdas
edilmesi düşüncesidir. Bu kapsamda denkleştirme tazminatı sadece “maddi zarar”
veya “mali bir hak” olarak değerlendirilmemeli, müşteri çevresinden kaynaklanan
ve acentelik sözleşmesinin sona ermesi ile acente aleyhine oluşan durumun
giderilmesi çabası ile ilişkilendirilmelidir.&lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-size: 12px;">[2]&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;">TTK m. 122/1 hükmü
uyarınca, sözleşme ilişkisinin sona ermesinden sonra;&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;">Müvekkil,
acentenin bulduğu yeni müşteriler sayesinde, sözleşme ilişkisinin sona
ermesinden sonra da önemli menfaatler elde ediyorsa,&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;">
Acente,
sözleşme ilişkisinin sona ermesinin sonucu olarak, onun tarafından işletmeye
kazandırılmış müşterilerle yapılmış veya kısa bir süre içinde yapılacak olan
işler dolayısıyla sözleşme ilişkisi devam etmiş olsaydı elde edeceği ücret
isteme hakkını kaybediyorsa,&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;">
Somut
olayın özellik ve şartları değerlendirildiğinde, ödenmesi hakkaniyete uygun
düşüyorsa&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;">acente,
müvekkilden uygun bir tazminat isteyebilir. TTK m. 122/4’e göre acentelik
sözleşmesi sona erdikten sonra 1 yıllık bir süre içerisinde acentenin
denkleştirme talebinde bulunması gerekmektedir. Doktrinde, bu 1 yıllık süre hak
düşürücü süre olarak kabul edilmektedir. Bu nedenle, denkleştirme talep hakkı
söz konusu 1 yıllık süre içinde ileri sürülmüş olmak kaydıyla Türk Borçlar
Kanunu m. 147/5 uyarınca beş yıllık zamanaşımı süresi içinde dava yoluyla da
istenebilir[3].
Ancak belirtmek gerekir ki TTK m. 122/3 hükmü uyarınca müvekkilin, feshi haklı
gösterecek bir eylemi olmadan, acente sözleşmeyi feshetmişse veya acentenin
kusuru sebebiyle sözleşme müvekkil tarafından haklı sebeplerle feshedilmişse,
acente denkleştirme isteminde bulunamaz.&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;">TTK m. 122/4’te,
denkleştirme isteminden önceden vazgeçilemeyeceği hüküm altına alınmıştır. Buna
göre, acentelik sözleşmesinde yer alan, denkleştirme tazminatı istenemeyeceği
yönündeki hükümler, geçersiz sayılacaktır. Ancak sözleşme akdedildikten sonra
denkleştirme talebinden vazgeçilmesi, doktrinde tartışmalı olmakla birlikte hukuken
mümkündür.&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;">Denkleştirme
miktarının belirlenmesi hususunda TTK’de doğrudan bir düzenleme bulunmamaktadır.
Bununla birlikte TTK m.122/2 hükmü uyarınca üst sınır “&lt;/span>&lt;em>Tazminat, acentenin
son beş yıllık faaliyeti sonucu aldığı yıllık komisyon veya diğer ödemelerin
ortalamasını aşamaz.&lt;/em>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">” şeklinde belirtilmiştir. Bu doğrultuda hâkim, üst
sınırı aşmamak kaydıyla, hakkaniyete uygun bir tazminata hükmedebilecektir.
Sözleşmenin beş yıldan daha kısa bir sürede sona ermiş olması halinde ise, bu
sürede elde edilen ücret ve diğer ödemelerin ortalaması alınarak tazminat
hesaplaması yapılmaktadır.&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;">Son olarak, TTK
125/5 hükmüne göre hakkaniyete aykırı düşmedikçe, tek satıcılık ile benzeri
diğer tekel hakkı veren sürekli sözleşme ilişkilerinin sona ermesi hâlinde de
denkleştirme tazminatının talep edilebileceği belirtilmiştir. Ancak burada
önemle belirtmek gerekir ki ilgili sözleşme ilişkisinin tarafa tekel hakkı
tanıması gerekmektedir. Örneğin tekel hakkı tanımayan bir bayilik sözleşmesine
dayanarak denkleştirme tazminatı talep edilemeyecektir.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&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;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong>[1]&lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;"> Yargıtay 11.HD, 30.11.2017,
E.2016/2791, K.2017/6770&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;strong>[2]&lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;"> Rauf Karasu, “Türk Ticaret
Kanunu ve Türk Ticaret Kanunu Tasarısı’na Göre Acentenin Denkleştirme Talebi”,
AÜHFD., 2008, C.57, S.4, s. 289.&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;strong>[3]&lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;"> Kaya, Türk Ticaret Kanunu Şerhi
(Acente), s. 251- 252; Bilgili ve Demirkapı, Ticari İşletme Hukuku, s. 140;
Bozer ve Göle, Ticari İşletme Hukuku, s. 170; Bahtiyar, Ticari İşletme Hukuku,
s. 201.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&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;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong>Kaynakça&lt;/strong>&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;strong>1.&lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&nbsp;T.C.
Dicle Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Özel Hukuk Anabilim Dalı “Türk
Hukukunda Acentelerin Denkleştirme Talep Hakkı” Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Hülya Ecer
Kılıçoğlu,2021
https://acikerisim.dicle.edu.tr/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11468/8615/T%C3%BCrk%20hukukunda%20acentelerin%20denkle%C5%9Ftirme%20talep%20hakk%C4%B1.pdf?sequence=1&amp;isAllowed=y&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;strong>2.&lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;"> Acentenin
Denkleştirme İstemi Hakkındaki Yargı Kararlarına İlişkin Bazı
Değerlendirmeler”, İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 2022, C. 13, S.
2, s. 534-548.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366645703_Acentenin_Denklestirme_Istemi_Hakkindaki_Yargi_Kararlarina_Iliskin_Bazi_Degerlendirmeler_Inonu_Universitesi_Hukuk_Fakultesi_Dergisi_2022_C_13_S_2_s_534-548&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;strong>3.&lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&nbsp;
https://www.lexpera.com.tr/ictihat/yargitay/11-hukuk-dairesi-e-2016-2791-k-2017-6770-t-30-11-2017&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>

Denkleştirme tazminatı, Yargıtay kararlarında “acentelik sözleşmesi sona erdikten sonra, bu ilişkinin devamı boyunca acentenin kişisel gayretiyle yarattığı müşteri çevresinden âkidinin halen yararlanması, acentenin ise yararlanmaması nedeniyle uğradığı kaybın karşılığı” şeklinde tanımlanmıştır.

Denkleştirme Tazminatı

&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;">Goodwill compensation has been subject to myriad Court of Cassation
decisions and is defined as "the compensation for the continued benefit
arising from the customer base garnered through the personal efforts of the
agent during the agency relationship, and still enjoyed by the principal and
not by the agent after the termination of the agency agreement."&lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-size: 12px;">[1]&lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">.&nbsp;Article 122 of the Turkish Commercial Code No.
6102 (&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;strong style="font-size: 14px;">TCC&lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">) aims to establish equity by entitling the agent to a certain
amount of compensation consequent to the termination of the agency agreement,
due to the fact that the agent has created a market and customer portfolio through
advertising and promotional activities based on the assumption that it will
operate in the market for a certain period of time, and in this sense, has been
instrumental in the benefit enjoyed by the principal even after the termination of the
agreement. In this context, the compensation should not only be considered as
"pecuniary damage" or a "financial right", but should also be
associated with the effort to remedy the adverse situation arising from the
customer base garnered by the agent and the termination of the agency agreement
resulting in the detriment of the agency&lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-size: 12px;">[2]&lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">.&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 Art. 122/1 TCC, after the termination of the contractual
relationship;&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;">If the principal obtains significant benefits after
the termination of the contractual relationship, due to the new customers found
by the agent,&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;">If, as a result of the termination of the contractual
relationship, the agent loses the right to demand remuneration for the works
already performed or to be imminently performed with the customers brought into
business by him, that he would have otherwise obtained had the contractual
relationship continued,&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;">If, when the facts and circumstances of the case are
evaluated, it is equitable to pay,&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;">The agent may request a suitable compensation from the principal.
Pursuant to Article 122/4 of the TCC, the agent is required to request
compensation within a period of 1 year following the termination of the agency
agreement. This 1-year period is considered as a forfeiture period according to
the majority view. Therefore, provided that the right to demand goodwill
compensation is asserted within the above-mentioned 1-year period, it may also
be asserted through a lawsuit within the five-year statute of limitations
pursuant to Article 147/5 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (&lt;/span>&lt;strong style="font-size: 14px;">TCO&lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">)&lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-size: 12px;">[3]&lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">. However, it should be
noted that, pursuant to Article 122/3 of the TCC, if the agent has terminated
the contract in the absence of any act of the principal justifying the
termination, or if the contract has been terminated by the principal with just
cause due to the fault of the agent, then the agent cannot claim goodwill
compensation.&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;">Article 122/4 of the TCC stipulates that the compensation claim cannot
be waived in advance. Accordingly, the provisions in the agency agreement
stating that the agent may not request a goodwill compensation claim shall be
deemed invalid. However, it is legally possible to waive the goodwill
compensation claim after the conclusion of the agreement, although its validity
is subject to dispute in the doctrine.&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;">TCC does not contain an explicit regulation governing the determination
of the compensation amount. However, Article 122/2 of the TCC, does contain a
provision relating to the upper limit of the compensation amount stipulating
that "Compensation shall not exceed the average of the annual
commission or other payments received by the agent as a result of its
activities in the last five years." Accordingly, the judge may award
an equitable compensation, provided that it does not exceed the upper limit. If
the agreement is terminated within a period shorter than five years, the compensation
is calculated by taking the average of the fees and other payments received
during the duration of the agreement.&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;">Lastly, pursuant to Article 125/5 of the TCC, unless it would be
contrary to principles of equity, compensation may be claimed in the event of
the termination of exclusive dealing and other similar permanent contractual
relationships granting exclusivity rights. However, it is important to note
here that the relevant contractual relationship must grant exclusivity rights
to the party. For example, goodwill compensation cannot be claimed based on a
dealership agreement that does not grant exclusivity.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;hr style="">&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;strong>[1]&lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;"> Yargıtay 11.HD, 30.11.2017,
E.2016/2791, K.2017/6770&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;strong>[2]&lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;"> Rauf Karasu, “Türk Ticaret
Kanunu ve Türk Ticaret Kanunu Tasarısı’na Göre Acentenin Denkleştirme Talebi”,
AÜHFD., 2008, C.57, S.4, s. 289.&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;strong>[3]&lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;"> Kaya, Türk Ticaret Kanunu Şerhi
(Acente), s. 251- 252; Bilgili ve Demirkapı, Ticari İşletme Hukuku, s. 140;
Bozer ve Göle, Ticari İşletme Hukuku, s. 170; Bahtiyar, Ticari İşletme Hukuku,
s. 201.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;hr style="">&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;strong>Sources&lt;/strong>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: left;">&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;strong>1.&nbsp;&lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">T.C.
Dicle Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Özel Hukuk Anabilim Dalı “Türk
Hukukunda Acentelerin Denkleştirme Talep Hakkı” Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Hülya Ecer
Kılıçoğlu,2021 https://acikerisim.dicle.edu.tr/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11468/8615/T%C3%BCrk%20hukukunda%20acentelerin%20denkle%C5%9Ftirme%20talep%20hakk%C4%B1.pdf?sequence=1&amp;isAllowed=y&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;strong>2.&nbsp;&lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">Acentenin
Denkleştirme İstemi Hakkındaki Yargı Kararlarına İlişkin Bazı
Değerlendirmeler”, İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 2022, C. 13, S.
2, s. 534-548.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366645703_Acentenin_Denklestirme_Istemi_Hakkindaki_Yargi_Kararlarina_Iliskin_Bazi_Degerlendirmeler_Inonu_Universitesi_Hukuk_Fakultesi_Dergisi_2022_C_13_S_2_s_534-548&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;strong>3.&nbsp;&lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">https://www.lexpera.com.tr/ictihat/yargitay/11-hukuk-dairesi-e-2016-2791-k-2017-6770-t-30-11-2017&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>

Goodwill compensation has been subject to myriad Court of Cassation decisions and is defined as "the compensation for the continued benefit arising from the customer base garnered through the personal efforts of the agent during the agency relationship, and still enjoyed by the principal and not by the agent after the termination of the agency agreement."

Goodwill Compensation

Halka Kapalı Anonim Şirketler’de, tüzel kişiliğin sona erme halleri; “infisaha” ve “feshe yol açan sebepler” olmak üzere ikiye ayrılmaktadır. 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu’nda ve şayet öngörülmüş ise esas sözleşmede düzenlenen bir nedenin gerçekleşmesi ile ...

Halka Kapalı Anonim Şirketlerde Sona Erme ve Tasfiye Süreci

Ortaklarının sınırlı sorumlu olmasından dolayı en çok tercih edilen ortaklık türlerinden biri olan anonim şirketlerde ailevi ve kişisel konuların yanı sıra şirketlerin performansında beklentilerin karşılanmaması gibi pek çok sorun, bazı ortakların ortaklıktan çıkma taleplerini beraberinde getiriyor. 

Haklı Sebeple Fesih Davaları

&lt;p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0px; text-align: justify; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">&lt;strong style="">&lt;span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Introduction&lt;/span>&lt;/strong>&lt;/p>

&lt;p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0px; text-align: justify; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&nbsp;&lt;br>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>

&lt;p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0px; text-align: justify; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">&lt;span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Recently,
        portfolio management companies (&lt;strong>PMC&lt;/strong>s) in Turkey have been growing
        rapidly in both number and volume. This rapid growth has brought with it the
        necessity to make amendments to the law on PMCs. On the sector side, it is
        believed that PMCs generally have difficulties in accessing the technical means
        and establishing the employment and organizational structure they need to
        operate more efficiently. Most PMCs suffer large losses from their capital
        until they make a profit, and therefore those that do not have enough capital
        cease their operations. We anticipate that the Communiqué Amending the
        Communiqué on Principles Regarding Portfolio Management Companies and
        Activities of Such Companies (&lt;strong>Communiqué&lt;/strong>) published in the Official
        Gazette dated February 18, 2023, may be useful in overcoming these problems.
        The most important changes brought by the Communiqué can be listed as &lt;strong>(i)&lt;/strong>
        increase of the minimum requirements for initial capital and equity capital, &lt;strong>(ii)&lt;/strong>
        establishment of service units within the company, and &lt;strong>(iii)&lt;/strong> employment
        of a set number of managers. &lt;/span>&lt;/p>

&lt;p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0px; text-align: justify; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong>&nbsp;&lt;/strong>&lt;br>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>

&lt;p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0px; text-align: justify; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">&lt;strong>&lt;span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Lower
            Limit Increase for Initial and Equity Capital&lt;/span>&lt;/strong>&lt;/p>

&lt;p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0px; text-align: justify; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&nbsp;&lt;br>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>

&lt;p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0px; text-align: justify; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">&lt;span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Pursuant to
        art. 2 of the Communiqué, the minimum possible initial capital of a PMC has
        been increased from 6 million TRY to 30 million TRY. This lower limit was
        increased from 3 million 750 thousand TRY to 15 million TRY for PMCs with limited
        activities. As in the previous regulation, the minimum limits on equity capital
        vary according to the size of the relevant portfolio. However, with the recent
        amendment, a significant increase was made in the minimum limits of equity
        capital. Pursuant to art. 11 of the Communiqué, the minimum equity capital
        limit is set at 30 million TRY for companies with a portfolio size of up to 1
        billion TRY, while the minimum equity capital limit for companies with a
        portfolio size exceeding 36 billion TRY is regulated as 100 million TRY. This
        increase in the initial and equity capital requirements of PMCs can be
        considered a precaution regarding the current and potential resource needs and
        shortages of companies.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>

&lt;p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0px; text-align: justify; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong>&nbsp;&lt;/strong>&lt;br>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>

&lt;p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0px; text-align: justify; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">&lt;strong>&lt;span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Employment
            of a Set Number of Managers &lt;/span>&lt;/strong>&lt;/p>

&lt;p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0px; text-align: justify; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&nbsp;&lt;br>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>

&lt;p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0px; text-align: justify; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">&lt;span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">It can be
        evaluated that the amendment made with the Communiqué in relation to company
        management may solve the organizational problems of PMCs to a certain extent.
        Pursuant to the relevant articles (&lt;em>art. 3 and art. 7&lt;/em>) of the Communiqué,
        a new structure has been introduced stipulating that the number of managers in
        a given PMC cannot be less than three, four, five and six, respectively, in
        proportion to the portfolio sizes set out in art. 11. In addition, pursuant to
        art. 7, in cases where portfolio managers and the fund service units are
        established within the company, the requirement for the fund manager to be
        employed exclusively and on a full-time basis is regulated. We are of the
        opinion that these new regulations will positively impact the efficiency and
        organizational structure of PMCs.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>

&lt;p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0px; text-align: justify; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong>&nbsp;&lt;/strong>&lt;br>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>

&lt;p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0px; text-align: justify; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">&lt;strong>&lt;span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Service
            Units to be Established within the Company &lt;/span>&lt;/strong>&lt;/p>

&lt;p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0px; text-align: justify; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&nbsp;&lt;br>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>

&lt;p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0px; text-align: justify; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">&lt;span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Another
        noteworthy amendment is by virtue of art. 4 and art. 6 which provides for the
        internal employment structure of research, risk management, internal control
        and service units for broadly authorized PMCs. Thus, the units that are most
        important for PMCs will be established within the company and this will
        strengthen the organizational efficiency and integrity of PMCs.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>





&lt;p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0px; text-align: justify; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong>&nbsp;&lt;/strong>&lt;br>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>

&lt;p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0px; text-align: justify; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">&lt;strong>&lt;span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Conclusion&lt;/span>&lt;/strong>&lt;/p>

&lt;p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0px; text-align: justify; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&nbsp;&lt;br>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>

&lt;p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0px; text-align: justify; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">&lt;span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Many PMCs
        cannot continue to operate and cease their activities due to insufficient
        capital. Furthermore, there are financial and managerial obstacles standing
        before the development and continuity of PMCs that have commenced their
        activities without sufficient financial strength. The above-mentioned new
        regulations are aimed to strengthen PMCs in terms of management and capital.
        Thus, in the coming days, it may be possible to observe positive developments
        regarding PMCs, as they strengthen their financial and administrative
        structures by adapting to the changes brought by the Communiqué.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>

Recently, portfolio management companies in Turkey have been growing rapidly in both number and volume. This rapid growth has brought with it the necessity to make amendments to the law on PMCs.

Extension of the Deadline Regarding Amendments to the Communiqué With Respect to Capital Loss and Negative Equity

Popular Articles on Commercial & Corporate

Latest Insights from Gün + Partners

Extension of the Deadline Regarding Amendments to the Communiqué With Respect to Capital Loss and Negative Equity

Popular Articles on Commercial & Corporate

Latest Insights from Gün + Partners

Subscribe to our newsletter