Gün + Partners

The 11th Civil Chamber of the Turkish Court of Appeals (CoA) has set forth in its decision dated November 18 2019 (2019/359 E. and 2019/7279 K.) that the later dated trademark application was filed in bad faith by taking into account the high level of recognition as well as the original and distinctive nature of the prior dated trademark, which has no meaning.

The COVID-19 pandemic has driven mankind to question sufficiency and sustainability of business models, social and moral norms, and Law-practices, which cannot be separated from society and its needs. Due to the ongoing pandemic basic need of survival and the need to access the means such as ventilation machines, masks, goggles and most importantly pharmaceuticals, is at its climax, as well as the need for an invention is at its most.

In principle, a court order rendered in a country has its legal effects and consequences only within the same country. For a foreign court decision to create legal effects and consequences in Turkey, this decision needs to be legally recognised and enforced by Turkish courts. The regulations regarding the recognition and/or enforcement of foreign court decisions are stipulated between Article 50 and 59 of the International Private and Civil Procedure Code (IPCPC) numbered 5718 which sets the legal conditions for the recognition and enforcement of foreign court decisions.

Indirect infringement is not explicitly dealt with in the Turkish IP Law. However, the legislator confers, via Article 86 of the Industrial Property Code (IPC), a right to the patent holder to prevent third parties from supplying essential elements of the invention to unauthorised people, which will eventually lead to the working of the patented invention. In order for this provision to be implemented, third parties must be aware that these elements or instruments are sufficient to work the invention, and should be aware that they will be used for this purpose, or this situation should be clear enough.