The 11th Civil Chamber of the Turkish Supreme Court's
recently published a decision in which it considered a claim that
the plaintiff's trademark was infringed because a retailer
continued to use of the trademark after termination of the
franchise agreement. The Supreme Court held that such use of the
trademark constitutes trademark infringement and an expert's
report is necessary to assess the amount of compensation.
At the First Instance Court, the plaintiff claimed the defendant
continued to use its trademark, despite termination of the
franchise agreement. It also claimed the defendant's actions
constitute unfair competition, sought prevention of this violation,
as well as compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary
The defendant claimed its use of the trademark was permitted by
the fair use exception (Article 12 of Decree Law No. 556 Pertaining
the Protection of Trademarks).
The Court of First Instance accepted the plaintiff's claims.
It ruled that the defendant had continued to use the
plaintiff's trademark as if there was a continuous organic link
between parties and the defendant has failed to act as a prudent
merchant by failing to make efforts to discontinue use of the
trademark. The lower court noted that the defendant's
continuing use of the trademark after termination of the franchise
agreement constitutes trademark infringement and unfair
competition, even if sale of the remaining original goods is legal.
The defendant appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that sale of remaining goods, which were
obtained within the scope of the franchise agreement, does not
constitute trademark infringement nor unfair competition.
Accordingly, it held that the profit obtained through such
infringing use of the trademark should be determined with an expert
The Supreme Court overturned the lower court's decision on
the basis that the Court of First Instance's examination was
incomplete due to the absence of the expert witness report.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the Court of First
Instance must re-consider the amount of pecuniary and non-pecuniary
compensation once such a report is obtained.
Case reference: Yarg. 11. HD. 16.12.2014, 2014/911 E.,
Information first published in the
MA | Gazette, a fortnightly legal update newsletter produced by
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
On 8 September 2016 (C-160/15), the CJEU ruled that the posting of a hyperlink to copyright-protected works located on another website does not constitute copyright infringement when the link poster does not seek financial gain.
The chapter on the UK summarises the IP court and litigation system in the UK, recent developments in relation to IP law and practice, the forms and availability of IP protection and trends and outlook in the IP sphere.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).