Abstract
References
- Case C-408/01 Adidas Benelux BW v. Fitnessworld Trading
- Case C-375/97, General Motors Corp. v. Yplon SA (1999)
- Case C-251/95, Sabel BV v. Puma AG (1997)
- Case C-487/07, L’Oréal SA and Others. v. Bellure NV and Others (2009)
- Case C-252/07, Intel v. CPM- Intelmark (2008)
- Case C-63/97, Bayerische Motorenwerke AG and BMW Nederland BV v. Deenik (1998)
- Case T-215/03, Sigla SA v. OHIM
- Audi-Med Trademark, 1998 R.P.C. 863, 1998 E.T.M.R. 1010, 1017 (1998)
- UnionlUnion Soleure, 20 May 1983, NJ 72.
- Lucas Bols v. Colgate- Palmolive (1979) E.C.C. 419, Benelux Court of Justice
- 11th Chamber of Court of Appeal, E. 1982/3859, K. 1982/4025, 21.10.1982
- 11th Chamber of Court of Appeal, E.2004/49, K 2004/9168, 04.10.2004
- 11th Chamber of Court of Appeal, E. 2007/5927, K. 2007/9302, 18.06.2007
- Ankara 2nd Civil Court of Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights, E.2010/191, K.2011/143
- http://www.deris.com.tr/Upload/CourtDecision/42afa496-e558-4ffb-ba7e-c078dd1a5a23/ MAX-MAXDEN%20KARAR%20OZETI.pdf (accessed on 12 July
A Comparison Of Trademark Laws In European Union And Turkey On Protection Against Dilution Of Trademarks
Abstract
The aim of this thesis is to compare the laws in the EU and Turkey on trademark dilution in the light of case law. In the first part, EU law is explained under the headings of Trademark Directive, Trademark Regulation and Benelux trademark law. In the second part, Turkish trademark on dilution examined. The comparison part focused on the similarities and differences between the sides mainly which mainly focus on reputation, likelihood of confusion, detrimentally to distinctive character or reputation, due cause and the proof requisites to anti-dilution protection. It was concluded that, although European Union and Turkey has different structures, policies and aims in trademark law; political relations between parties makes the trademark laws against dilution develop in similar way
Keywords
European Union Turkey trademark law dilution Decree Law 556 Trademark Directive Trademark Regulation.
References
- Case C-408/01 Adidas Benelux BW v. Fitnessworld Trading
- Case C-375/97, General Motors Corp. v. Yplon SA (1999)
- Case C-251/95, Sabel BV v. Puma AG (1997)
- Case C-487/07, L’Oréal SA and Others. v. Bellure NV and Others (2009)
- Case C-252/07, Intel v. CPM- Intelmark (2008)
- Case C-63/97, Bayerische Motorenwerke AG and BMW Nederland BV v. Deenik (1998)
- Case T-215/03, Sigla SA v. OHIM
- Audi-Med Trademark, 1998 R.P.C. 863, 1998 E.T.M.R. 1010, 1017 (1998)
- UnionlUnion Soleure, 20 May 1983, NJ 72.
- Lucas Bols v. Colgate- Palmolive (1979) E.C.C. 419, Benelux Court of Justice
- 11th Chamber of Court of Appeal, E. 1982/3859, K. 1982/4025, 21.10.1982
- 11th Chamber of Court of Appeal, E.2004/49, K 2004/9168, 04.10.2004
- 11th Chamber of Court of Appeal, E. 2007/5927, K. 2007/9302, 18.06.2007
- Ankara 2nd Civil Court of Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights, E.2010/191, K.2011/143
- http://www.deris.com.tr/Upload/CourtDecision/42afa496-e558-4ffb-ba7e-c078dd1a5a23/ MAX-MAXDEN%20KARAR%20OZETI.pdf (accessed on 12 July
Details
| Primary Language | English |
|---|---|
| Journal Section | Research Article |
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | January 1, 2013 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2013 Volume: 6 Issue: 1 |