AVRUPA BİRLİĞİ HUKUKU UYARINCA MARKANIN "GERÇEK KULLANIM" PROBLEMİ

Fikri Mülkiyete dair uluslararası ilgi günümüzde oldukça dikkat çekicidir. Fikri haklara dair bu ilgi dürüst ticaretin teşviki ve ekonomik kalkınma ile de tamamen bağlantılıdır ancak serbest ticaretin faydaları sadece fikri mülkiyet haklarının kabul edilmesiyle ilgili bulunmamaktadır. Avrupa Birliği'nin İşleyişi Hakkında Anlaşma olan ve günümüzde Lizbon Anlaşması olarak adlandırılan Roma Anlaşması'nın belirgin ekonomik başarıları, Kuzey Amerika Serbest Ticaret Anlaşması ve Gümrük Tarifeleri ve Ticaret Genel Anlaşması olarak bilinen Uruguay Raundu, Ticaretle Bağlantılı Fikri Mülkiyet Hakları Anlaşması ile birlikte; Dünya Ticaret Örgütü, ekonomik büyü- menin desteklenmesi için hükümetlere Fikri Mülkiyet haklarının uyumlaştırılması baskısı uygulamaktadır. Tüm dünyada birbirleri ile uyumlaştırılan hukuki mevzuat gelişirken, bölgesel gruplar da özellikli olarak Fikri Mülkiyet korunmasının oluşumuna odaklanmaktadırlar. Avrupa'da ulusal ve Birlik dü- zeyinde kombine olan marka içtihat hukuku politik ve stratejik bir temele dayanmaktadır. Avrupa'nın küresel rekabet edebilirlikteki yükselişine dair endişeler marka hukuku korumasını önceye nazaran daha önemli kılmaktadır. "Gerçek Kullanım" konusuna dair sürüncemeli görüşmeler günümüzde Birliğin en mühim yasal güçlüklerinden birini oluşturmaktadır. Bu çalışma markanın kullanımıyla ilgili üç temel mevzuya dayanmaktadır; giriş bölümünde markanın gerçek kullanım gerekliliği, ikinci bölümde ABAD içti- hatları uyarınca Birlik Markasının bölgesel kullanımı ve getirilen yorumlar, son bölümde ise "gerçek kulla- nım" kavramı dava hukuku yoluyla incelenmiştir.

'GENUINE USE' OF TRADEMARK PROBLEMATIQUE IN THE COURSE OF EUROPEAN UNION LAW

The international interest in intellectual property is quite remarkable today and now completely linked to promotion of fair trade and economic development, but it is the economic benefits of free trade not the embrace of intellectual property rights per se which evolves the harmonization process. The apparent economic successes of the Treaty of Rome now the Lisbon Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the North American Free Trade Agreement and Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, including the Agreement on TradeRelated aspects of Intellectual Property rights, that resulted in the World Trade Organization have caused governments to continue pressing for harmonized IP protection in support of economic growth.While improving harmonized and co-existing legislations all over the world there are also territorial grouping that focus on establishing specific kinds of IP protection. The combination of national and Unionwide the trademark case law in Europe is as a political and strategic basis. This together with increasing concerns about Europe's global competitiveness makes the trademark protection even more circumstantial than before. The protracted negotiations on the 'genuine use' concept regarding the trademark protection constituted one of the major legal challenges of the (at the time) Community. This study focuses primarily on the three main issues on use of trademarks: In the introductory part, the concept of the genuine use requirements is explained by examining trademark use. Secondly, the territorial use of the Community Trade Mark Regulation is analysed in the light interpretation of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The last part of the study is mainly focused on case law related to the '-genuine use-' concept.

___

Barinbridge, David (2007), I. Intellectual Property, London. Pearson Longman.
Bently, Lionel & Sherman, Brad (2004), Intellectual Property Law, 2nd. ed., London, Oxford University Press.
Elias, Stephen R. (2005), Trademark: Legal Care for Your Business & Product Name, 7th ed. Berkeley, CA, USA: Nolo.
Phillips, Jeremy & Simon, Ilanah (2005), Trade Mark Use, (edited), US, Oxford University Press.
Seville, Catherine (2009), EU Intellectual Property Law and Policy, London, Elgar European Law Publication.
Tritton, Guy (2008), Intellectual Property in Europe, London, Sweet & Maxwell Press. Von Bomhard, Verena & Pagenberg, Jochen &
D. Schennen, Detlef (eds.) (2005), Harmonisierung des Markenrechts, Festschrift für Alexander von Mühlendahl, Berlin, Carl Heymanns Verglag. OHIM, The Manual concerning Opposition Part 6: Proof of Use, 14 September 2009. Makaleler
Bolton, Emily (2011), 'Defining Genuine Use Requirements of Community Trade Markas in Light of an Expanding European Union', Connecticut Journal of International Law, Vol 27, pp. 371-389.
Bugge, Jens Jakob & Gregersen Peter E.P. (2003), Requirement of Use of Trade Marks', EIPR, Vol. No 25 (7), pp. 309-321.
Duran, Luis-Alfonso (2005) 'Geographical scope of the use requirement for Community Trademarks', Berlin, Carl Heymanns Verglag, pp. 333-340.
Gielen, Charles (2011), 'Netherlands: Trade Marks - Meaning of 'genuine use' of a Trade Mark', EIPR,Vol. 23(9), pp. N140.
Gielen, Charles (2010), 'Leno Merken BV v Hagelkruis Beheer BV: Benelux - trade marks - use of a CTM in One Country Insufficent to Constitute "genuine use"', EIPR, Vol. No. 32(5), pp. N27-28.
Howell, Claire F. (2006), 'What constitutes "genuine use"? Laboratories Goemar SA v LaMer Technology', EIPR, Vol. No. 28(2) pp. 118-121.
Kur, Annette (2012), 'Convergence After All? A Comparative View on the U.S and EU Trademark Systems in the Light of the 'Trade Mark Study', Journal of Intellectual Property Law, 305, pp. 305-324.
Morcom, Christopher (2010), 'Hagelkruis Beheer BV v Leno Merken BV: Genuine use in the community - What does the CTMR require?', EIPR, 32(7), pp. 359-362.
von Muhlendahl, Alexander (2008), Community Trade Mark Riddles: Territoriality and Unitary Character, EIPR, 30(2), pp. 66-70 .
C-292/89 The Queen v. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Gustaff Desiderius Antonissen [1991] ECR p. I-00745.
C-375/97 General Motors Corp v. Yplon SA, [1999] ECR p. I-542.
C-40/01 Ansul BV v Ajax Brandbeveiliging BV, [2003] ECR p. I-2439.
C-259/02 La Mer Technology Inc v Laboratoires Goemar SA, [2004] ECR p. I-01159.
C-371/02 Björnekulla Fruktindustrier AB v. Procordia Food AB, [2004] ECR p. I-5791.
C-416/04 P, The Sunrider Corp. v. OHIM, [2006] ECR p. I-4237.
C-442/07 Verein Radetzky-Orden v. Bundesvereinigung Kameradschaft, [2008] ECR I-9223.
C-149/11 Leno Merken BV v. Hagelkruis Beheer BV, 19 December 2012 [2013] E.T.M.R. p. 16.
T-39/01 Kabushiki Kaisha Fernandes v. OHIM, [2002] ECR p. II-5233.
T-334/01 MFE Marienfelde GmbH v. OHIM - intervener Vetoquinol AG [2004] ECR p. II-2787. T-203/02 The Sunrider Corp v. OHIM, [2004] ECR p. II-2787.
T-325/06 Boston Scientific Ltd v OHIM, [2008] ECR p. II-174 (summay published).
No 827/2000 Marco/Marca Opposition Guidelines, Part 6, Proof of use - Status: March 2004
p. 17and 42; OAMI-HABM-OHIM-OHMI-UAMI DO-ABl.-OJ-JO-GU 2/2003 p. 378.
No 802/1999 Miles/More Miles, cited from OHIM Opposition Guidelines, Part 6, Proof of use - Status: March 2004 p. 18. Web Kaynakları
_____http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/indprop/ docs/tm/20110308_allensbach-study_en.pdf> s.e.t. 28.01.2014.
_____http://curia.europa.eu/ > s.e.t. 20.12.2014.
_____http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ TXT/HTML/;jsessionid=8TxmTYTbycnp08Q31 ygyTSwsWJpTSkpPQytwD81hx0zPQsQcpvVC!1395015523?isOldUri=true&uri=CELEX:- 61989CJ0292> s.e.t. 28.05.2014.
_____http://oami.europa.eu/en/mark/aspects/reg/ reg4094.htm > s.e.t. 01.04.2014.
_____http://oami.europa.eu/en/mark/aspects/pdf/ JJ020371.pdf> s.e.t. 04.04.2014.
_____http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/indprop/ docs/tm/20110308_allensbach-study_en.pdf> s.e.t. 07.04.2014.
_____http://www.internationallawoffice.com/newsletters/detail.aspx?g=e968e049-ccb0-4306-9711-ce- 0ca9bfdf4a&redir=1> s.e.t. 28.05.2014.