Reinterpretation of the Average Consumer Benchmark considering Recent Developments

Abstract

In trademark law, the “average consumer” is a benchmark that represents the target audience of a product or service and is considered in cases of trademark registration or infringement. This criterion plays a decisive role in assessing consumer behaviour and perceptions and deciding on the registrability or infringement of a particular trademark. Although the average consumer has been formulated as “a person who is reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect” by the doctrine and judicial decisions, it is an undeniable fact that the formulation of the average consumer is far from providing the necessary flexibility to the judiciary in the evaluation of the concrete case, especially today, when electronic commerce is gaining importance, market conditions are changing day by day, and the perception of the consumer has taken a different shape from the traditional understanding. An interdisciplinary approach to the average consumer criterion and the inclusion of survey evidence and public opinion survey evidence regarding actual use and likelihood of confusion within the scope of the global assessment of likelihood of confusion would be beneficial in terms of resolving concrete disputes on a more objective basis.

Keywords

• Average Consumer
• Relevant Public
• Representative Consumer
• Targeted Consumer
• Reasonably Well-informed Consumer
• Well-informed Consumer
• Specialised Consumer
• And Consumer Perception

Güncel Gelişmeler Işığında Ortalama Tüketici Ölçütünün Yeniden Yorumlanması

Abstract

Marka hukukunda “ortalama tüketici”, bir ürünün veya hizmetin hedef kitlesini temsil eden ve marka tescili veya ihlali durumlarında dikkate alınan bir ölçüttür. Bu ölçüt, tüketici davranışlarını ve algılarını değerlendirme ve belirli bir markanın tescil edilebilirliği veya ihlali konusunda karar vermede belirleyici bir role sahiptir. AB ve Türk marka mevzuatında tanımı yapılmamış olan ortalama tüketici, doktrin ve yargı kararlarında “makul seviyede bilgilendirilmiş ve makul seviyede dikkatli ve tedbirli kimse” şeklinde formüle edilmiş olmakla beraber, özellikle elektronik ticaretin gittikçe önem kazandığı, pazar şartlarının her geçen gün değiştiği ve bu çerçevede tüketicinin algısının da geleneksel anlayıştan farklı bir şekle büründüğü günümüzde ortalama tüketicinin formüle edilmesinin somut olay değerlendirmesinde yargıya gereken esnekliği sağlamaktan uzak olduğu yadsınamaz bir gerçektir. Ortalama tüketici ölçütünün disiplinler arası bir yaklaşımla ele alınmasının ve karıştırılma ihtimalinin global değerlendirmesi kapsamında fiili kullanım ve karıştırılma ihtimaline ilişkin anket delili ve kamuoyu araştırması delillerinin de dahil edilmesinin somut uyuşmazlıkların daha objektif bir zeminde çözümlenmesi bakımından faydalı olacağı düşünülmektedir.

Keywords

• Ortalama Tüketici
• İlgili Halk
• Temsili Tüketici
• Hedef Kitle
• Makul Ölçüde Bilgilenmiş Tüketici
• Bilgilenmiş Tüketici
• Uzman Tüketici
• Tüketici Algısı

References

1. Aaker DA ve Joachimsthaler E, Brand Leadership (The Free Press 2000). google scholar
2. Aksoy MA, ‘2005/29/AT Haksız Ticari Uygulamalar Direktifinde Düzenlenen Haksız Rekabet Halleri ve Uygulama Örnekleri’ (2015) 73(1) İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası 279-318. google scholar
3. Alemanno A, ‘Balancing Free Movement and Public Health: The Case of Minimum Unit Pricing of Alcohol in Scotch Whisky’ (2016) 53 CMLR 1037-1063. google scholar
4. Anderson SP, Palma A ve Thisse JF, Discrete Choice Theory of Product Differentiation (MIT Press 1992). google scholar
5. Anemaet L,‘The Fairy Tale of the Average Consumer: Why We Should Not Rely on the Real Consumer When Assessing the Likelihood of Confusion’ (2020) 69 GRUR Int 1008-1026. google scholar
6. Arkan S, Marka Hukuku, Cilt 1, (Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Yayınları, Ankara 1997). google scholar
7. Ayhan R, Çağlar H, Yıldız B ve İmirlioğlu D, Sınai Mülkiyet Hukuku (Adalet, Ankara 2021). google scholar
8. Bahadır Z, Markanın Hükümsüzlüğü ve İptali (Turhan Kitabevi, Ankara 2018). google scholar

9. Bakamitsos GA ve Siomkos GJ, ‘Context Effects in Marketing Practice: The Case of Mood’ (2004) 3(4) Journal of Consumer Behaviour 304-314. google scholar
10. Bargh JA, ‘The Automaticity of Everyday Life’, içinde RS Wyer ve JA Bargh (eds) The Automaticity of Everyday Life: Advances in Social Cognition (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc 1997). google scholar
11. Beebe B, ‘An Empirical Study of the Multifactor Tests for Trademark Infringement’ (2006) 94 California Law Review 1581-1654. google scholar
12. Bently L, Sherman B, Gangjee D ve Johnson P, Intellectual Property Law (5th edn, Oxford University Press 2018) google scholar
13. Bereskin DR, ‘Likelihood of Confusion: The Irrational Basis of Trade Mark Protection’, (2019) 14(3) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 223-229. google scholar
14. Bradford LR, ‘Emotion, Dilution and the Trademark Consumer’ (2008) 23 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 1227-1298. google scholar
15. Christensen GL, DeRosia ED ve Lee TR, ‘Sophistication, Bridging the Gap, and the Likelihood of Confusion: An Empirical and Theoretical Analysis’ (2008) 98 TMR 913-949. google scholar
16. Çifçi S ve Ruziye C, ‘Marka ve Marka Yönetimi Kavramları: Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Kot Pantolon Marka Tercihlerine Yönelik Bir Araştırma’ (2007) 44 Finans Politik & Ekonomik Yorumlar 69-88. google scholar
17. Çolak U, Türk Marka Hukuku (5. Baskı, On İki Levha Yayıncılık 2023). google scholar
18. Çolak U, ‘Türk Marka Hukukunda Karıştırma’ (2013) Marka Hukukunda Güncel Gelişmeler Sempozyumu 24-38. google scholar
19. Davis J, ‘Locating the Average Consumer: His Judicial Origins, Intellectual Influences and Current Role in European Trade Mark Law’ (2005) 2 IPQ 183-203. google scholar
20. Dibb S ve Simkin L, ‘Targeting, Segments and Positioning’ (1991) 9 International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 4-10. google scholar
21. Dinwoodie GB ve Gangjee DS, ‘The Image of the Consumer in European Trade Mark Law’, içinde D Leczykiewicz and S Weatherill (eds) The Image(s) of the Consumer in EU Law (Hart 2015). google scholar
22. Dinwoodie GB, ‘The Europeanisation of Trade Mark Law’, içinde A Ohly ve J Pila (eds) The Europeanisation of Intellectual Property Law (Oxford University Press 2013). google scholar
23. Dirikkan H, Tanınmış Markanın Korunması (Seçkin, Ankara 2003). google scholar
24. Drawbaugh K, Brands in the Balance Meeting the Challenges of Commercial Identity (Reuters 2001). google scholar
25. Epçeli S, Marka Hukukunda Karıştırılma İhtimali (Legal Yayınevi, İstanbul 2006). google scholar
26. Evans J, ‘Dual-Processing Accounts of Reasoning, Judgment, and Social Cognition’ (2008) 59 Annu Rev Psychol 255-278. google scholar
27. Faure M ve Luth H, ‘Behavioural Economics in Unfair Contract Terms - Cautions and Considerations’ (2011) 34 Journal of Consumer Policy 337-358. google scholar
28. Fhima, I, ‘Introducing Reality into Trade Mark Law’ (2014) 9 JIPLP 684-687. google scholar
29. Fhima I, ‘Trade Mark Law Meets Branding?’, içinde Deven R. Desai, Ioannis Lianos ve Spencer Weber Waller (eds) Brands, Competition Law and IP (CUP 2015). google scholar
30. Fhima I ve Denvir C, ‘An Empirical Analysis of the Likelihood of Confusion Factors in European Trade Mark Law’ (2015) 46 IIC 310-339. google scholar
31. Fhima I ve Gangjee DS, The Confusion Test in European Trade Mark Law (Oxford University Press 2019). google scholar
32. Gangjee D, ‘Property in Brands: The Commodification of Conversation’ in H Howe and J Griffiths (eds) Property Concepts in Intellectual Property Law (CUP 2013). google scholar
33. Güneş İ, “Marka Kimliği ve Markalar” Uluslararası Sempozyumu, (2014) 9(94) Terazi Hukuk Dergisi 70-72. google scholar
34. Güneş İ, Sınai Mülkiyet Kanunu Işığında Uygulamalı Patent ve Faydalı Model Hukuku (4. Baskı, Seçkin 2021). google scholar
35. Güven, Koray, ‘Reklam Hukuku Perspektifinden Avrupa Birliği, Alman, Türk Hukuklarında Tüketici Ölçütü: Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanı’nın “Gut Springheide” Kararı Üzerinden Bir İnceleme’ (2015) 28 (129) Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi 493-508. google scholar
36. Holbrook MB ve Hirschman EC, ‘The Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Consumer Fantasies, Feelings and Fun’ (1982) 9(2) Journal of Consumer Research 132-140. google scholar
37. Huang V, Weatherall K ve Webster E, ‘The Use of Survey Evidence in Australian Trade Mark and Passing Off Cases’, içinde Andrew T Kenyon, Ng-Loy Wee Loon ve Megan Richardson (eds), The Law of Reputation and Brands in the Asia Pacific (CUP 2012). google scholar
38. Incardona R ve Poncibo C, ‘The average consumer, the unfair commercial practices directive, and the cognitive revolution’ (2007) 1 Journal of Consumer Policy Issue 21-38. google scholar
39. İmirlioğu D, 6769 Sayılı Sınai Mülkiyet Kanunu’na Göre Marka Hukukunda Ayırt Edicilik ve Markanın Ayırt Ediciliğinin Zedelenmesi (Adalet Yayınevi, Ankara 2018). google scholar
40. Jacoby J, ‘Is it Rational to Assume Consumer Rationality? Some Consumer Psychological Perspectives on Rational Choice Theory’ (2000) NYU, Ctr for Law and Business Research Paper No. 00-09. google scholar
41. Jehoram TC, van Nispen C ve Huydecoper T, European Trademark Law. Community Trademark Law and Harmonized National Trademark Law (Kluwer International 2010). google scholar
42. Jolls CM, Sunstein C ve Thaler RH, ‘A Behavioral Approach to Law and Economics’ (1998) 50(5) Stanford Law Review 1471-1550. google scholar
43. Kahneman D ve Frederick S, ‘Representativeness Revisited: Attribute Substitution in Intuitive Judgment’, içinde T Gilovich et al (eds) Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (CUP 2002). google scholar
44. Karayel, Berk, ‘Türk marka hukukunda karıştırılma ihtimali ekseninde ortalama tüketici kavramı’, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi (Kadir Has Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, 2019). google scholar
45. Kaya A, Marka Hukuku (Arıkan, İstanbul 2006) 140-141. google scholar
46. Kihistrom JF, ‘The Cognitive Unconscious’ (1987) 237 Science 1445-1452. google scholar
47. Koşer N, ‘Tasarım Hukukunda Bilgilenmiş Kullanıcı Kavramı’ (2012) 12(1) İnönü University Law Review 380-393. google scholar
48. Koşer N, ‘Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanı Genel Mahkemesi’nin 7 Şubat 2019 Tarihli “Swemac” Kararı ve Bu Kararın Türk Hukuku Açısından Değerlendirilmesi - Marka Hukukunda Önceki Tarihli Hakların Etkisine İlişkin Bir İnceleme’ (2020) 5(1-2), Arş. Gör. Ceren Damar Şenel Armağanı, Çankaya Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 2151 (Marka Hukuku), 2151-2169. google scholar
49. Kurt E, Uygulamalı Marka Hukuku (2. Baskı, Seçkin, İstanbul 2020). google scholar
50. Küçükali C, Marka Hukukunda Karıştırma İhtimali (Seçkin, Ankara 2009). google scholar
51. Küçükdağlı A, ‘Avrupa Birliği, Alman, Türk Hukuklarında Tüketici Modelleri’ (2020) 2(2) Türk-Alman Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 145-178. google scholar
52. Laustsen RD, The Average Consumer in Confusion-based Disputes in European Trademark Law and Similar Fictions (Springer: Cham, Switzerland 2019). google scholar
53. Kaya, A, Marka Hukuku (Arikan, İstanbul 2006). google scholar
54. Laustsen RD, The Average Consumer in Confusion-based Disputes in European Trade- mark Law and Similar Fictions (Springer: Cham, Switzerland 2019). google scholar
55. Landes WM ve Posner RA, ‘The Economics of Trademark Law’ (1988) 78 TMR 267-306. google scholar
56. Landes WM ve Posner RA, ‘Indefinitely Renewable Copyright’ (2002) John M Olin Law & Economics Working Paper No 154 (2D Series). google scholar
57. Lüken U, Brownlow P ve Aries N, ‘How Courts View Surveys in Trade Mark Cases’ (2015) MIP google scholar
58. Maeyaert P ve Muyldermans J, ‘Likelihood of Confusion in Trademark Law: A Practical Guide Based on the Case Law in Community Trade Mark Oppositions from 2002 to 2012’ (2013) 103(5) The Law Journal of the International Trademark, s. 1041-1042. google scholar
59. Maeyaert P ve Muyldermans J, ‘Likelihood of Confusion in Trademark Law: A Practical Guide Based on the Case Law in Community Trade Mark Oppositions from 2002 to 2012’ (2013) 103(5) LJINTA 1032 vd google scholar
60. Mandl M, Felfernig A, Teppan E ve Schuber M, ‘Consumer Decision Making in Knowledge-Based Recommendation’ (2011) 37 J Intell Inf Syst 1-22. google scholar
61. Morgan R, ‘Ensuring Greater Legal Certainty in OHIM Decision-Taking by Abandoning Legal Formalism’ (2012) 7 JIPLP 408-429. google scholar
62. Olshavsky, RW ve Granbois HD, ‘Consumer Decision-making - Fact or Fiction?’ (1979) 6 Journal of Consumer Research 93-100 google scholar
63. Öztek S, ‘İlaç Markalari’ (2004) 4 Kazanci Dergisi 66-72. google scholar
64. Posner R, ‘Rational Choice, Behavioural Economics, and the Law’ (1998) 50 Stanford Law Review 1551. google scholar
65. Purnhagen K, ‘More Reality in the CJEU’s Interpretation of the Average Consumer Benchmark -Also More Behavioural Science in Unfair Commercial Practices?’ (2017) 8 European Journal of Risk Regulation 437-440 google scholar
66. Purnhagen K ve Schebesta H, ‘A Case Moving at the Frontiers of Market Access, Freedom of Goods, the Common Agricultural Policy and Science in Court - Reflections on Scotch Whisky Association’ (2017) 42(3) European Law Review 437-440. google scholar
67. Rachlinski J, ‘New Law and Psychology: a Reply to Critics, Sceptics, and Cautious Supporters’ (2000) 85 Cornell Law Review 739-766. google scholar
68. Rossiter J ve Bellman S, ‘Emotional Branding Pays Off’ (2012) 52(3) Journal of Advertising Research 291-296 google scholar
69. Scott C ve Black J, Cranston’s Consumers and the Law (Butterworths, 2000). google scholar
70. Suluk C, Karasu R ve Nal T, Fikri Mülkiyet Hukuku (Güncellenmiş 7. Baskı, Seçkin 2023). google scholar
71. Sloman S, ‘Two Systems of Reasoning’, içinde T Gilovich et al (eds) Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (CUP 2002). google scholar
72. Tekinalp Ü, Fikri Mülkiyet Hukuku (Güncelleştirilmiş ve Genişletilmiş 5. Bası, Vedat Kitapçılık, İstanbul 2012). google scholar
73. Tversky A ve Kahneman D, ‘The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice’ (1981) 211 Science New Series 453-458. google scholar
74. Tekinalp Ü, Fikri Mülkiyet Hukuku (5. Baskı, Vedat Kitapçılık 2012). google scholar
75. Xiao Y, ‘A Thousand Faces of The Average Consumer: Towards A More Empirically Grounded Approach to the Infringement Test?’ (2022) 17(7) Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice 559-567. google scholar
76. Ünlüönen, K, Battal A, Yaylı A ve Yüksel S, ‘Marka İltibas Davalarında Kamuoyu Görüşünün Hukuki Sürece Dahil Edilmesi: Üç Boyutlu Bir Araştırma Örneği’ (2007) 6(22) Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 1-12. google scholar
77. Visser DJG, ‘Beslissen in IE-zaken. Verslag van een Veldonderzoek’ (2008) 31 NJB 1918-1926. google scholar
78. Weatherall K, ‘The Consumer as the Empirical Measure of Trade Mark Law’ (2017) 80 MLR 5787. google scholar
79. Yasaman H, Ayoğlu T, Yusufoğlu Bilgin F, Memiş Kartal P, Yüksel SH ve Yasaman Z, Sınai Mülkiyet Kanunu Şerhi, Cilt 2 (Seçkin Yayıncılık, İstanbul 2021) google scholar
80. Yusufoğlu F, Patent Verilebilirlik Şartları (İstanbul 2014). google scholar