Sınai Mülkiyet Kanununda ihtiyati tedbirler
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2023
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
İhtiyati tedbirler sınai mülkiyet alanında yoğun olarak talep edilmekte ve uygulanmaktadır ve kanun koyucu, ihtiyati tedbirler bakımından Sınai Mülkiyet Kanunu'nun 159. maddesinde özel bir düzenlemeye yer vermiştir. Buna göre, SMK ile korunan hakların sahipleri, söz konusu haklarının ihlal edildiğini veya ciddi ve yakın ihlal tehlikesi ile karşı karşıya olunduğunu yaklaşık olarak ispat etmeleri halinde gerek dava kapsamında gerekse dava açılmadan önce ihtiyati tedbir talebinde bulunabilirler. Maddede, tecavüz teşkil eden ürünlere ve bunların üretiminde münhasıran kullanılan vasıtalara el koyulması ve bunların saklanması, tecavüz teşkil eden fiillerin durdurulması ve önlenmesi ve herhangi bir zararın tazmini açısından teminat verilmesi tedbirleri sınırlı sayıda olmayacak şekilde gösterilmiştir. Mahkeme, hükmün etkinliğini temin etmek üzere her türlü tedbire karar verebilir. Davanın esasını çözecek nitelikte ihtiyati tedbir kararı verilemeyeceği yönündeki usul hukuku kuralı sınai mülkiyet alanındaki tedbirler bakımından yumuşatılmıştır. Ayrıca, her ne kadar SMK m.159 tecavüze dayalı davalar için kaleme alınmışsa da sınai mülkiyete dayalı diğer davalarda da muhtelif yönlerde ihtiyati tedbir kararı verilebilmektedir. Konu, taraflar arasındaki menfaat dengesinin gözetilmesi ve bu bağlamda tedbir kararının ölçülülük ilkesi çerçevesinde ele alınması gereği, ispat araçlarının çeşitliliği, SMK m.159'da HMK'ya yapılan atıf gibi hususlarda da arz ettiği özellikler bakımından derinlemesine incelenmesi gereği duyulan bir konudur. Bu çalışmada, SMK m.159 hükmü; mülga KHK'lardaki durum gösterilerek, HMK'nın uygulama alanı bulan hükümlerine değinilerek incelenmiş; yargı kararlarına ve doktrin görüşlerine de yer verilmiştir. 2
Injunctions are widely requested in the field of industrial property and and the legislator, in terms of precautionary measures, has decided that the Industrial Property Article 159 of the IPL contains a special provision. Accordingly, with the IPL the holders of protected rights have complained of violations of those rights or of serious and imminent if they can prove that they are in imminent danger of infringement, they must may request an interim injunction both within the scope of the lawsuit and before the lawsuit is filed. The Article includes, but is not limited to, the seizure of infringing products and the means exclusively used in their production and their storage, the cessation and prevention of infringing acts, and the provision of security for the compensation of any damages. The court may decide on any measure to ensure the effectiveness of the judgement. The rule of procedural law stating that interim injunctions cannot be granted to resolve the merits of the case is applicable to industria,l property in the field of industrial property. Furthermore, although Article 159 of the IPL was drafted for infringement-based cases, interim injunctions may be granted in various aspects in other industrial property-based cases. The issue is analysed in depth in terms of the necessity to observe the balance of interests between the parties and in this context, the necessity to consider the injunction decision within the framework of the principle of proportionality, th1e diversity of the means of proof, and the reference to the CCP in Article 159 of the IPL. is an issue that needs to be analysed. In this study, Article 159 of the IPL; abrogated By showing the situation in the Decree Laws, the provisions of the CCP that are applicable The article has been analysed with reference to judicial decisions and doctrinal opinions.
Injunctions are widely requested in the field of industrial property and and the legislator, in terms of precautionary measures, has decided that the Industrial Property Article 159 of the IPL contains a special provision. Accordingly, with the IPL the holders of protected rights have complained of violations of those rights or of serious and imminent if they can prove that they are in imminent danger of infringement, they must may request an interim injunction both within the scope of the lawsuit and before the lawsuit is filed. The Article includes, but is not limited to, the seizure of infringing products and the means exclusively used in their production and their storage, the cessation and prevention of infringing acts, and the provision of security for the compensation of any damages. The court may decide on any measure to ensure the effectiveness of the judgement. The rule of procedural law stating that interim injunctions cannot be granted to resolve the merits of the case is applicable to industria,l property in the field of industrial property. Furthermore, although Article 159 of the IPL was drafted for infringement-based cases, interim injunctions may be granted in various aspects in other industrial property-based cases. The issue is analysed in depth in terms of the necessity to observe the balance of interests between the parties and in this context, the necessity to consider the injunction decision within the framework of the principle of proportionality, th1e diversity of the means of proof, and the reference to the CCP in Article 159 of the IPL. is an issue that needs to be analysed. In this study, Article 159 of the IPL; abrogated By showing the situation in the Decree Laws, the provisions of the CCP that are applicable The article has been analysed with reference to judicial decisions and doctrinal opinions.
Description
Keywords
Hukuk, Fikri ve sınai mülkiyet hakları, Law, Intellectual and industrial property rights
Turkish CoHE Thesis Center URL
Citation
WoS Q
Scopus Q
Source
Volume
Issue
Start Page
End Page
318