Esas No:2019\/4045<\/strong> nin11. Hukuk Dairesi 2019\/4045 E. , 2021\/3483 K.<\/p>\n\n\n\n MAHKEMES\u0130<\/strong> : B\u00d6LGE<\/strong>ADL\u0130YE<\/strong>MAHKEMES\u0130<\/strong> 20. HUKUK<\/strong>DA\u0130RES\u0130<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Taraflar aras\u0131nda g\u00f6r\u00fclen davada Ankara 3. Fikri ve S\u0131na\u00ee Haklar Hukuk Mahkemesince verilen 19.12.2017 <\/strong>tarih ve 2017\/15 E. – 2017\/585 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n davac\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan istinaf edilmesi \u00fczerine, istinaf isteminin kabul\u00fcne dair Ankara B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 20. Hukuk Dairesi’nce verilen 30.05.2019 <\/strong>tarih ve 2018\/1229 E. – 2019\/657 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n Yarg\u0131tay’ca incelenmesi duru\u015fmal\u0131 olarak daval\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan istenmi\u015f ve temyiz dilek\u00e7esinin s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde verildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olmakla, duru\u015fma i\u00e7in belirlenen 06.04.2021 <\/strong>g\u00fcn\u00fc haz\u0131r bulunan davac\u0131 vekili Av. … ile daval\u0131 vekili Av. … dinlenildikten sonra duru\u015fmal\u0131 i\u015flerin yo\u011funlu\u011fu ve s\u00fcre darl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan \u00f6t\u00fcr\u00fc i\u015fin incelenerek karara ba\u011flanmas\u0131 ileriye b\u0131rak\u0131ld\u0131. Tetkik Hakimi … taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen rapor dinlenildikten ve yine dosya i\u00e7erisindeki dilek\u00e7e, layihalar, duru\u015fma tutanaklar\u0131 ve t\u00fcm belgeler okunup incelendikten sonra i\u015fin gere\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcl\u00fcp, d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc: T.C.Yarg\u0131tay11. Hukuk Dairesi Esas No:2019\/4045Karar No:2021\/3483K. Tarihi: nin11. Hukuk Dairesi 2019\/4045 E. , 2021\/3483 K. MAHKEMES\u0130 : B\u00d6LGEADL\u0130YEMAHKEMES\u0130 20. HUKUKDA\u0130RES\u0130 Taraflar aras\u0131nda g\u00f6r\u00fclen davada Ankara 3. Fikri ve S\u0131na\u00ee Haklar Hukuk Mahkemesince verilen 19.12.2017 tarih ve 2017\/15 E. – 2017\/585 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n davac\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan istinaf edilmesi \u00fczerine, istinaf isteminin kabul\u00fcne dair Ankara B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 20. Hukuk Dairesi’nce verilen 30.05.2019 tarih…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":10362,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[63],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11088"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11088"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11088\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11089,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11088\/revisions\/11089"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/10362"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11088"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11088"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11088"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
Karar No:2021\/3483<\/strong>
K. Tarihi:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Davac\u0131 vekili, m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketin T**** *** ilk \u00f6zel sekt\u00f6r \u015farap \u00fcreticisi olarak 1929 y\u0131l\u0131nda Ankara’n\u0131n Kavakl\u0131dere semtinde kuruldu\u011funu, kuruldu\u011fu g\u00fcnden bu yana kesintisiz olarak ‘Kavakl\u0131dere’ ticaret unvan\u0131n\u0131 kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketin i\u015ftigal konusunun ana s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde belirtildi\u011fi \u00fczere \u015farap\u00e7\u0131l\u0131k ve kanunen caiz her t\u00fcrl\u00fc alkoll\u00fc, alkols\u00fcz i\u00e7ecek ile g\u0131da maddesi \u00fcretimi, i\u00e7 ticaret ve turizm end\u00fcstrisini ilgilendiren her t\u00fcrl\u00fc etkinlik oldu\u011funu, yap\u0131lan yat\u0131r\u0131mlarla ‘Kavakl\u0131dere’ markas\u0131n\u0131n \u00fclkemizin en eski ve tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015f markalar\u0131ndan birisi haline getirildi\u011fini, bu ibarenin ayn\u0131 zamanda m\u00fcvekkili ad\u0131na marka olarak tescilli oldu\u011funu, daval\u0131 \u015firketin ise ticaret unvan\u0131 “Yeni Kavakl\u0131dere G\u0131da Tar\u0131m Hayvanc\u0131l\u0131k Kimya Fermantasyon San ve Tic Ltd. \u015eti.” iken “Kavakl\u0131dere G\u0131da A\u015e” olarak de\u011fi\u015ftirdi\u011fini, ‘Yeni Kavakl\u0131dere’ ve ‘Yeni Kavakl\u0131dere Efor’ ibareli ilki 1984 y\u0131l\u0131nda tescil edilmi\u015f 4 adet tescilli markas\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011funu, belirtilen markalarda ‘Yeni’ ve ‘Kavakl\u0131dere’ ibarelerinin boyut ve g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcm olarak birbirine e\u015fit puntolarla yaz\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, daval\u0131n\u0131n tescilli markalar\u0131n\u0131, tescilli olduklar\u0131 halleriyle de\u011fil ‘KAVAKLIDERE<\/strong>‘ ibaresini \u00f6n plana \u00e7\u0131kartarak, ‘Yeni’ ibaresini son derece k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck ve neredeyse hi\u00e7 okunamayacak puntolarla yaz\u0131l\u0131 olarak kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, daval\u0131n\u0131n ‘Yeni Kavakl\u0131dere’ markas\u0131n\u0131 tescilli halinden farkl\u0131 olarak, m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketin tescilli ‘Kavakl\u0131dere’ markalar\u0131 ve ticaret unvan\u0131 ile iltibas yaratacak \u015fekilde kullanarak, \u015firket unvan\u0131 olarak ‘Kavakl\u0131dere’ i\u015faretini tescil ettirmek ve unvandaki ‘Kavakl\u0131dere’ i\u015faretini markasal olarak kullanmak suretiyle m\u00fcvekkili \u015firkete ait marka hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal etti\u011fini, haks\u0131z rekabete yol a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ‘Kavakl\u0131dere’ tan\u0131t\u0131m i\u015faretinin\/markas\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan-\u015f\u00f6hretinden haks\u0131z ve izinsiz olarak faydaland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ayn\u0131 ibareye alan ad\u0131nda da yer verdi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrerek, daval\u0131 \u015firketin ticaret unvan\u0131ndan ‘KAVAKLIDERE<\/strong>‘ ibaresinin \u00e7\u0131kart\u0131lmas\u0131na, sicilden terkinine, daval\u0131n\u0131n haks\u0131z rekabetin men’ine, ‘KAVAKLIDERE<\/strong>‘ markas\u0131na tecav\u00fczlerinin ref ve men’ine, davac\u0131n\u0131n haks\u0131z rekabetinin neticesi olan maddi durumun ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na, www.kavaklideregida.com alan ad\u0131n\u0131n terkinine ve h\u00fckm\u00fcn ilan\u0131na karar verilmesini talep ve dava etmi\u015ftir.
Daval\u0131 vekili, m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketin 1952 y\u0131l\u0131ndan beri faaliyet g\u00f6sterdi\u011fini, ‘Yeni Kavakl\u0131dere’ markas\u0131n\u0131 en ba\u015ftan bu yana tan\u0131t\u0131m vas\u0131tas\u0131 olarak kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ilki 1984 y\u0131l\u0131nda olmak \u00fczere, bu ibareyi defaten marka olarak tescil ettirdi\u011fini, Ankara merkezli olan her iki \u015firketin uzun y\u0131llardan bu yana kendi sekt\u00f6rlerinde faaliyet g\u00f6sterdiklerini ve birbirlerinden haberdar olduklar\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131 \u015firket yetkililerinin m\u00fcvekkili tesislerini 2014 ve 2015 y\u0131llar\u0131nda ziyaret ederek m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketi devralma yoluyla \u015firketleri birle\u015ftirme teklifinde bulunduklar\u0131n\u0131, 2014 ve 2015 y\u0131l\u0131nda bu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmeler yap\u0131l\u0131rken, m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketin unvan\u0131n\u0131 ‘KAVAKLIDERE<\/strong>GIDA<\/strong> A.\u015e.’ olarak de\u011fi\u015ftirdi\u011fini ve 2014 y\u0131l\u0131nda yap\u0131lan bu de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011fin davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan bilindi\u011fini, ay\u0131rt edicili\u011fi olmayan tali bir unsur olan ‘Yeni’ ibaresinin m\u00fcvekkili \u015firket unvan\u0131ndan \u00e7\u0131kart\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n, davac\u0131 kullan\u0131m\u0131na yakla\u015fma \u00e7abas\u0131 olarak aktar\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n yerinde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011fin amac\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketin yeni bir firmaym\u0131\u015f gibi alg\u0131lanmas\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6n\u00fcne ge\u00e7ilmesi oldu\u011funu, ay\u0131rt edici olan ‘Kavakl\u0131dere’ ibaresinin, davac\u0131 ve m\u00fcvekkili \u015firket taraf\u0131ndan uzun senelerdir birlikte kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketin 65 y\u0131l\u0131 a\u015fk\u0131n s\u00fcredir sirke, sos gruplar\u0131, \u015falgam suyu vb. \u00fcretmek suretiyle kendi sekt\u00f6r\u00fcnde faaliyet g\u00f6sterdi\u011fini, alkoll\u00fc i\u00e7ecek \u00fcretiminin kesinlikle bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, markas\u0131n\u0131 1984 y\u0131l\u0131nda tescil ettirdi\u011fini ve ‘Yeni Kavakl\u0131dere’ ibareli 81189 (1984), 2003 25640 (2003), 2006 28862 (2006) ve ‘Yeni Kavakl\u0131dere Efor’ ibareli 2010 80623 (2010) tescilli markalar\u0131n\u0131n sahibi oldu\u011funu, davac\u0131n\u0131n ihtarname dahi g\u00f6ndermeksizin bu davay\u0131 ikame etmi\u015f olmas\u0131n\u0131n tamamen k\u00f6t\u00fc niyetli bulundu\u011funu g\u00f6sterdi\u011fini savunarak, davan\u0131n reddini istemi\u015ftir.
Mahkemece, davac\u0131n\u0131n, daval\u0131n\u0131n “YEN\u0130 KAVAKLIDERE<\/strong> S\u0130RKELER\u0130”, “YEN\u0130 KAVAKLIDERE<\/strong> S\u0130RKELER\u0130” ve “KAVAKLIDERE<\/strong> S\u0130RKELER\u0130” bi\u00e7iminde kullan\u0131mlar\u0131na ses \u00e7\u0131karmamas\u0131 nedeniyle bu kullan\u0131mlar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden susmak suretiyle hak kayb\u0131na u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131, susma suretiyle hak kayb\u0131 ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n mevcut olmas\u0131 nedeniyle daval\u0131n\u0131n yukar\u0131daki kullan\u0131mlar\u0131n\u0131n davac\u0131 ad\u0131na tescilli markalardan do\u011fan haklara tecav\u00fcz etmedi\u011fi, daval\u0131n\u0131n internetteki “KAVAKLIDERE<\/strong>GIDA<\/strong> A.\u015e” \u015feklindeki ve internet sitesindeki markasal kullan\u0131mla ayn\u0131 \u015fekilde ticaret unvan\u0131 kullan\u0131m\u0131 i\u00e7eren bro\u015f\u00fcr ve instagram foto\u011fraf\u0131ndaki kullan\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n davac\u0131 markalar\u0131ndan do\u011fan haklara kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lma ihtimali yaratmak suretiyle tecav\u00fcz etmedi\u011fi, bu eylemlerin haks\u0131z rekabet de olu\u015fturmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, taraflar\u0131n serbest piyasada birlikte varolduklar\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n kendisinden sonra faaliyete ba\u015flayan daval\u0131 \u015firket hakk\u0131nda ticari faaliyet alanlar\u0131 ve kay\u0131tl\u0131 olduklar\u0131 ticaret sicil memurluklar\u0131 ile ticari hayat\u0131n ola\u011fan ak\u0131\u015f\u0131 dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda daval\u0131 faaliyetlerini bildi\u011fi veya bilebilecek durumda oldu\u011fu, davac\u0131n\u0131n marka hakk\u0131na dayanarak a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 davada, dosya kapsam\u0131nda temel olarak davac\u0131n\u0131n sessiz kalma yolu ile hak kayb\u0131na u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015f; bu karara kar\u015f\u0131 davac\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurulmu\u015ftur.
B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince, daval\u0131n\u0131n ticaret unvan\u0131n\u0131 tescilli oldu\u011fu bi\u00e7imiyle de\u011fil “KAVAKLIDERE<\/strong>” ibaresini \u00f6ne \u00e7\u0131karacak \u015fekilde markasal olarak kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131, yine bordo zemin \u00fczerine “KAVAKLIDERE<\/strong>” ibaresinin yaz\u0131lmas\u0131 suretiyle ger\u00e7ekle\u015fen markasal kullan\u0131m\u0131n, davac\u0131n\u0131n tescilli markalar\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda veya \u00f6nceden beri ger\u00e7ekle\u015fen fiili kullan\u0131mlar\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda bir kullan\u0131m olarak de\u011ferlendirilemeyece\u011fi, s\u00f6z konusu kullan\u0131mlar\u0131n\u0131n, davac\u0131n\u0131n marka tescilinden do\u011fan haklar\u0131na tecav\u00fcz ve haks\u0131z rekabet te\u015fkil etti\u011fi, davac\u0131n\u0131n sessiz kalma yoluyla hak kayb\u0131na u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n da s\u00f6ylenemeyece\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle, davac\u0131 vekilinin istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun HMK<\/strong>‘n\u0131n 353\/1-b-2 maddesi gere\u011fince kabul\u00fc ile, Ankara 3. Fikri ve S\u0131nai Haklar Hukuk Mahkemesinin 19.12.2017 <\/strong>g\u00fcn ve 2017\/15 E. – 2017\/585 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na, davan\u0131n kabul\u00fc ile “KAVAKLIDERE<\/strong>” ibaresinin, daval\u0131 \u015firketin ticaret unvan\u0131ndan terkinine, daval\u0131n\u0131n, ticaret unvan\u0131n\u0131 tescilli oldu\u011fu bi\u00e7imiyle de\u011fil, ticaret unvan\u0131nda yer alan “KAVAKLIDERE<\/strong>” ibaresini \u00f6ne \u00e7\u0131karacak \u015fekildeki kullan\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n ve bordo zemin \u00fczerine “KAVAKLIDERE<\/strong>” ibaresi yaz\u0131lmak suretiyle ger\u00e7ekle\u015fen markasal kullan\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n, markaya tecav\u00fcz ve haks\u0131z rekabet te\u015fkil etti\u011finin tespitine, bu eylemlerin ref’ine ve men’ine, haks\u0131z rekabetin neticesi olan maddi durumun ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na, bu kapsamda, daval\u0131n\u0131n yukar\u0131da belirtilen kullan\u0131mlar\u0131na konu her t\u00fcrl\u00fc tabela, bro\u015f\u00fcr, etiket, ambalaj ve sair tan\u0131tma vas\u0131talar\u0131n\u0131n toplanmas\u0131na, “KAVAKLIDERE<\/strong>” ibaresinin silinmesine, silinmeyenlerin imhas\u0131na, “www.kavaklideregida.com” internet sitesindeki dava konusu kullan\u0131mlar\u0131n durdurulmas\u0131na, bu alan ad\u0131n\u0131n terkinine, karar\u0131n kesinle\u015fmesini m\u00fcteakip h\u00fck\u00fcm f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n ilan\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.
Karar\u0131 daval\u0131 vekili temyiz etmi\u015ftir.
\u0130lk Derece Mahkemesince verilen karara y\u00f6nelik olarak yap\u0131lan istinaf ba\u015fvurusu \u00fczerine HMK<\/strong>‘n\u0131n 355 vd. maddeleri kapsam\u0131nda y\u00f6ntemince yap\u0131lan inceleme sonucunda B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince esastan verilen nihai kararda, dosya kapsam\u0131na g\u00f6re saptanan somut uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k bak\u0131m\u0131ndan uygulanmas\u0131 gereken hukuk kurallar\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 bir y\u00f6n olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi HMK<\/strong>‘n\u0131n 369\/1. ve 371. maddelerinin uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirici nedenlerin de bulunmamas\u0131na g\u00f6re usul ve yasaya uygun B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n onanmas\u0131na karar vermek gerekmi\u015ftir.
SONU\u00c7: Yukarda a\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle, daval\u0131 vekilinin temyiz isteminin reddi ile B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince verilen karar\u0131n HMK<\/strong>‘n\u0131n 370\/1. maddesi uyar\u0131nca ONANMASINA<\/strong>, HMK<\/strong>‘n\u0131n 372. maddesi uyar\u0131nca i\u015flem yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere dava dosyas\u0131n\u0131n \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesine, karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesine g\u00f6nderilmesine, takdir olunan 3.050,00 TL<\/strong> duru\u015fma vekalet \u00fccretinin daval\u0131dan al\u0131narak, davac\u0131ya verilmesine, a\u015fa\u011f\u0131da yaz\u0131l\u0131 bakiye 14,90 TL<\/strong> temyiz ilam harc\u0131n\u0131n temyiz eden daval\u0131dan al\u0131nmas\u0131na, 08.04.2021 <\/strong>tarihinde kesin olarak oybirli\u011fiyle karar verildi.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"