Fikri Mülkiyet Haklarının Uluslararası Yatırım Tahkiminde Ele Alınmasında Ortaya Çıkan Sorunlar

Abstract

Dünya Fikri Mülkiyet Örgütü (WIPO) kapsamında fikri mülkiyet haklarının uluslararası düzeyde korunmasına yönelik akdedilen anlaşmalar, koruma ile ilgili asgari standartları belirleseler de etkin bir yaptırım mekanizmasından yoksundurlar. Bu durum fikri mülkiyet haklarının uluslararası düzeyde korunması konusunda yeni arayışların ortaya çıkmasına neden olmuştur. Bu arayışlar, fikri mülkiyet haklarının uluslararası ticaret ve yatırım anlaşmaları içerisinde ele alınması ile istikametini bulmuştur. Fikri mülkiyet haklarının ticaretle bağlantılı olarak ele alınması konusundaki en somut örnek, Dünya Ticaret Örgütü (DTÖ) kapsamında akdedilen Ticaretle Bağlantılı Fikri Mülkiyet Hakları (TRIPS) Anlaşmasıdır. Ancak TRIPS Anlaşması kapsamındaki Anlaşmazlıkların Halli Mekanizması (AHM) yalnızca devletler tarafından işletilebilmektedir. Hak sahibi tabiiyetinde bulunduğu devleti ikna ederek sürecin başlatılmasını sağlasa ve AHM kapsamında dava kazanılmış olsa dahi fikri mülkiyet hakkı sahibi, kayıpları için tazminat elde edememektedir

Fikri hak sahiplerinin uluslararası alanda devleti doğrudan dava etme ve ortaya çıkan zararın tazmin edilmesi imkânı fikri mülkiyet haklarının bir yatırım türü olarak yatırımların korunması konusunda akdedilen anlaşmaların içerisine doğrudan veya dolaylı olarak alınması yoluyla sağlanmıştır. Böylelikle yatırım anlaşmaları ile öngörülen güvenceler fikri mülkiyet haklarına teşmil edilmiştir. Fikri hak sahiplerinin yatırımcı sıfatıyla ev sahibi devleti doğrudan dava etme imkanına sahip olması aynı zamanda fikri mülkiyet hakları açısından çözüme kavuşmayı bekleyen pek çok problemi de beraberinde getirmiştir. Fikri mülkiyet haklarının yatırım kavramı içerisinde nasıl değerlendirileceği, ulusal ve uluslararası fikri mülkiyet hukuku rejimleri ile kurulan kamu yararı ve özel yarar dengesinin yatırım tahkiminde ne şekilde ele alınacağı ve fikri mülkiyet haklarına yönelik devlet müdahalelerinin ne ölçüde dolaylı kamulaştırma teşkil edebileceği bu sorunların başında gelmektedir.

Keywords

• Uluslararası Yatırım Hukuku
• Fikri Mülkiyet Hakları
• Yatırım Tahkimi
• ICSID
• Yatırımın Korunması ve Teşviki Anlaşmaları
• Yatırım
• Dolaylı Kamulaştırma

Problems Arising in Addressing Intellectual Property Rights in International Investment Arbitration

Abstract

The agreements concluded under the auspices of the World Intellectual Property Organization (‘WIPO’) aimed at the international protection of intellectual property rights (‘IPRs’) set minimum standards for protection but lack an effective enforcement mechanism. This situation has led to the emergence of new searches for protecting IPRs at the international level. These efforts have found their direction in addressing IPRs within international trade and investment agreements. The most concrete example of addressing IPRs in connection with trade is the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (‘TRIPS’) concluded under the World Trade Organization (WTO). However, only WTO member states can resort to the Dispute Settlement Mechanism (‘DSM’) referred to in the TRIPS Agreement. Even if IPR holders manage to convince their state to initiate the process and the state wins a case under the DSM, IPR holders cannot obtain compensation for their losses.

The ability for IPR holders to directly sue States through investment arbitration at the international level and seek compensation for damages has been facilitated through the inclusion of IPRs, either directly or indirectly, into investment agreements. This inclusion has extended the guarantees provided by investment agreements to IPRs. However, the handling of IPRs in investment arbitration has also led to the emergence of some problematic issues. These include how IPRs are considered within the concept of investment, how the balance between public and private interests established by national and international intellectual property law regimes is addressed in investment arbitration, and to what extent state interventions against IPRs may constitute indirect expropriation.

References

1. Ataman-Figanmeşe İ, ‘Milletlerarası Ticari Tahkim He Yatırım Tahkimi Arasındaki Farklar' (2012) 3l(l) MiLLetLerarası Hukuk ve MiLLetLerarası Özel Hukuk Bülteni 91-152.
2. Avşar M, ‘ICSID Konvansiyonuna Göre Yatırım Kavramı’ (2017) 37(2) Milletlerarası Hukuk ve Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk Bülteni 95-140.
3. Boie B, ‘The Protection of Intellectual Property Rights through Bilateral Investment Treaties: Is There a TRIPS-plus Dimension?’ (2010) (19) NCCR Trade Working Paper 1-59.
4. Carlos C, ‘Intellectual Property as Protected Investment: Redefining the Reach of Investors Rights’ in Christophe Geiger (ed), Research Handbook on Intellectual PropertY and Investment Law (Edward Elgar 2020) 120-136.
5. Chen H, 'The Challenged State Soverelgnt: A Review of ELI Case’ (2020) 5(3) PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences 957-969.
6. Chen T, ‘Judicially Developed Patent Law and Expropriation Under Investor-State Dispute Settlement’ (2018) 11(1) ContemporarY Asia Arbitration Journal 73-90.
7. Çalışkan Z, ‘Türkiye’nin Taraf Olduğu İkili ve Çok Taraflı Anlaşmalarda Yatırım Kavramı’ (2010) 29 Milletlerarası Hukuk ve Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk Bülteni 85-118.
8. Çalışkan Y, WIPO Tahkimi ve Dünya Ticaret Örgütü (1st edn, Değişim 2008).

9. Demirkol B, ‘The Notion of ‘Investment’ in International Investment Law' (2015) 1 (i) The Turkish Commercial Law Review 41-50.
10. Ducimetiere C, ‘Intellectual Property Under The Scrutiny of Investor-State Tribunals: Legitimacy and New Challenges' (2018) 9 (3) Journal of Intellectual Property, Information TechnologY and E-Commerce Law 266-281.
11. DreYfuss R and Frankel S, ‘From Incentive to Commodity to Asset: How International Law Is Reconceptualizing Intellectual Property’ (2015) 36(4) Michigan Journal of International Law 557- 602.
12. DreYfuss R and Frankel S, ‘Reconceptualizing ISDS: When Is IP an Investment and How Much Can States Regulate It’ (2018) 21(2) Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law 377-415.
13. Egemen-Demir I, ICSID Tahkiminde Kişi Bakımından Yetki (İst edn, Filiz 2014).
14. Ekşi N, ‘Yargıtay Kararları Işığında Yabancı Hakem Kararlarının Tenfizinde Kamu Düzeni’ (2020) 40 (1) MiLLetLerarası Hukuk ve MiLLetLerarası Özel Hukuk Bülteni 143-201.
15. Erden-NaLçacıoğLu Z, Milletlerarası Yatırım Hukukunda Dolaylı Kamulaştırma (İst edn, On İki Levha 2015).
16. Erkan M, Milletlerarası Tahkimde Yetki Sorunları (1st edn, Yetkin 2013).
17. Evans EG, ‘Intellectual Property as a Trade Issue-The Making of the Agreement on Trade- Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights' (1994) 18(2) WorLd Competition Law and Economics Review, 138-180.
18. FrankeL S and Gervais DJ, ‘Plain Packaging and the Interpretation of the TRIPS Agreement’ (2013) 4(1) Victoria University of Wellington Legal Research Papers 1148-1214.
19. Gathii J and Ho C, ‘Regime Shift of IP Lawmaking and Enforcement from WTO to the International Investment Regime’ (2017) 18(2) Minesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology 427-516.
20. GabrieL ML, ‘Bridgestone v PanamaWhen Are Trademarks Covered Investments?' (2019) 34(3) ICSID Review- Foreign Investment Law Journal 569-576.
21. Gervais DanieL J, 'Intellectual Property, Trade & Development: The State of Play’ (2005-2006) 74 Fordham Law Review 505-535.
22. Gibson C, ‘A Look At The Compulsory License in Investment Arbitration: The Case of Indirect Expropriation’ (2010) 25(3) American UniversitY International Law Review 357-422.
23. GiraY FK, Milletlerarası Yatırım Tahkiminde Kamulaştırmadan Doğan Tazminat ve Tazminatın Hesaplanmasında Kullanılan Yöntemler (3rd edn, Beta 2013).
24. Grabowski A, ‘The Definition of Investment under the ICSID Covention: A Defense of Salini’ (2014) 15(1) Chicago JournaL of InternationaL Law 287-309.
25. Grosse Ruse-Khan H, ‘Protecting Intellectual Property Through Trade and Investment Agreements: Concepts, Norm-setting and Dispute Settlement' in Christophe Geiger (ed), Research Handbook on Intellectual PropertY and Investment Law (Edward ELgar 2019) 11-47.
26. GünarsLan BF, ‘Intellectual Property- Related Investment Disputes Based on Indirect Expropriation: An Overview of Philip Morris V Uruguay’ (2023) (1) GalatasaraY Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 855-898.
27. Jan Schokkaert and Yvon Heckscher, International Investment Protection: Comparative Law Analysis of Bilateral And Multilateral Inter-state Conventions, Doctrinal Texts and Arbitral Jurisprudence Concerning Foreign Investments (BruYlant 2009).
28. Karaman S, ‘Protection of Intelectual Property Rights Under Investment Arbitration’ (Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Koç Üniversitesi, 2019).
29. KaYa T, Dünya Ticaret Örgütü (DTÖ) Anlaşmalarının İç Hukukta Uygulanması (1st edn, Legal 2015).
30. Kaya T, ‘Uluslararası Ticaret ve Yatırım Hukuku Bakımından Tütün Ürünlerinin Düz Paketlenmesi Meselesi' (2018) 24(2) Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi 1045-1085.
31. KostYlo J, ‘From Gunpowder to Print: The Common Origins of Copyright and Patent’ in Ronan DeazlY, Martin Kretschmer and Lionel BentlY (eds) Privilege and PropertY Essays on The History of CopYright (Öpen Book 2010) 21-50.
32. Liberti L, ‘Intellectual Property Rights in International Investment Agreements: An Overview' (2010) (01) OECD Working Papers 1-39.
33. Marisi F and Chaisse J, ‘Is Intellectual Property ‘Investment’? Formation, Evolution, and Transformation of the Intellectual Property Rights-Foreign Direct Investment Normative Relationship' (2019) 34(1) Ohio State Journal On Dispute Resolution 97-152.
34. Mercurio B, ‘Awakening The Sleeping Giant: Intellectual Property Rights in International Investment Agreements’ (2012) 15(3) Journal of International Economic Law 871-915.
35. Mercurio B, ‘The Untapped Potential of Investor-State Dispute Settlement Involving Intellectual Property Rights and Expropriation in Free Trade Agreements' (2011) Chinese UniversitY CRFED Working Paper 1-67.
36. Okediji RL, ‘When Is Intellectual Property an Investment?’ in Christophe Geiger (ed), Research Handbook on Intellectual PropertY and Investment Law (Edward ELgar Publishing 2020) 94-119.
37. Protopsaltis P, ‘Judging the State in International Trade and Investment Law: Sovereignty Modern, the Law and the Economics’ Leiden Journal of International Law (2019) 32 (2) 345-349.
38. Upreti PN, ‘Intellectual Property Rights in Investment Treaty Arbitration: A Critical Examination of the Philip Morris & Eli Lilly Awards’ in Siegfried Fina, Mark LemleY and Roland Vogl (eds), (TTLF Stanford Law Working Paper 2020) 1-61.
39. Schreuer C, ‘The Concept of Expropriation under the ECT and other Investment Protection Treaties’ in Clarisse Ribeiro (ed), (Investment Arbitration and The EnergY Charter TreatY 2006) 108-159.
40. Suluk C, Karasu R and Nal T, Fikri Mülkiyet Hukuku (7th edn, Seçkin 2023).
41. Vadi V, ‘Towards a New Dialetics: Pharmaceutical Patents, Public Health and Foreign Direct Investments’ (2015) 5 (1) New York UniversitY Journal of Intellectual PropertY and Entertainment Law 113-195.
42. Voon T, Mitchell AD and Munro J, ‘Intellectual Property Rights in International Investment Agreements: Striving for Coherence in National and International Law’ in C.L.Lim & BrYan Mercurio (eds), InternationaL Economic Law After the Crisis: A Tale of Fragmented Disciplines (Cambridge University Press 2015) 380-405.
43. Bridgestone Licensing Services, Inc. and Bridgestone Americas, Inc. v Republic of Panama ICSID Case No ARB/16/34, Award (14 August 2020).
44. Bridgestone Licensing Services, Inc. and Bridgestone Americas, Inc. v Republic of Panama ICSID Case No ARB/16/34, Decision on Expedited Objections (13 December 2017) paras 171-172.
45. Eli Lilly and Company v The Government of Canada, UNCITRAL ICSID Case No UNCT/14/2, Award (16 March 2017).
46. Fedax N.V. v. The Republic of Venezuela ICSID Case No. ARB/96/3, Decision of the TribunaL on Objections to Jurisdiction (11 JuLY 1997) para 43.
47. Salini Costruttori S.p.A. and Italstrade S.p.A. v Kingdom of Morocco ICSID Case No. ARB/00/4, Award (4 FebruarY 2004).
48. Shell Brands International AG and Shell Nicaragua S.A. v Republic of Nicaragua ICSID Case No ARB/06/14, Award (12 March 2007)
49. Philip Morris Brands Sâri, Philip Morris Products S.A. and Abal Hermanos S.A. v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7, Award (8 JuLY 2016).
50. Philip Morris Asia Limited v. the Commonwealth of Australia UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2012-12, Award (8 JuLy 2017).
51. Phoenix Action, Ltd. v The Czech Republic ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5, Award (15 ApriL 2009) paras 100-113.
52. Joy Mining Machinery Limited v Arab Republic of Egypt ICSID Case No. ARB/03/11, Award on Jurisdiction (6 August 2004) para 53.
53. Telenor Mobile Communications A.S. v The Republic of Hungary ICSID Case No. ARB/04/15, Award (13 September 2006) para 79.
54. Metalclad Corporation v The United Mexican States ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1, Award (30 August 2000) para 107.
55. Agreement on Trade-ReLated Aspects of InteLLectuaL PropertY Rights (15 ApriL 1994) Marrakesh Agreement EstabLishing the WorLd Trade Organization, Annex 1C, 1869 UNTS 299 (TRIPS Agreement).
56. Agreement between Japan and The United Mexican States for the Strengthening of the Economic Partnership (signed 17 September 2004, entrY into force 1 ApriL 2005).
57. Agreement between the BeLgo-Luxemburg Economic Union and the Government of the Republic of India for the promotion and the protection of investments (signed 31 October 1997, entrY into force 8 JanuarY 2001).
58. Agreement between the Federative RepubLic of BraziL and the FederaL Democratic RepubLic of Ethiopia on Investment Cooperation and FaciLitation (signed 11 ApriL 2018).
59. Agreement between the Swiss Confederation and the OrientaL RepubLic of UruguaY on the ReciprocaL Promotion and Protection (signed 7 October 1988, entrY into force 22 ApriL 1991).
60. Agreement between the Government of Hong Kong and the Government of AustraLia for the Promotion and Protection of Investments (Australia- Hong Kong, China SAR) (signed 15 September 1993 entry into force 15 October 1993 terminated 17 January 2020).
61. Agreement between the United States of America, the United Mexican States, and Canada (signed 30 November 2018, entrY into force 1 JuLY 2020).
62. Agreement between the Government of The RepubLic of Türkiye and The Government of The Arab Emirates Concerning the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments (signed 19.07.2023).
63. AustraLia-ChiLe Free Trade Agreement (signed 30 JuLy 2008, entered into force 6 March 2009).
64. Berne Convention for the Protection of LiterarY and Artistic Works (adopted 9 September 1979, revised 24 JuLY 1971 and amended 1979) S. Treaty Doc. No. 99-27 (1986).
65. Paris Convention for the Protection of IndustriaL PropertY (adopted 20 March 1883, revised 1967) 828 UNTS 305.
66. TreatY between The Government of The United States of America and The Government of The RepubLic of EL SaLvador Concerning The Encouragement and ReciprocaL Protection of Investment (EL Salvador- United States of America) (signed 10 March 1999).
67. TreatY for the Promotion and Protection of Investments (Pakistan- Germany) (signed 25 November 1959, entry into force 28 April 1962) UNTS 6575.
68. U.S.- Korea Free Trade Agreement (U.S.-Korea) (signed 30 June 2007, entry into force 15 March 2012).
69. Avrupa Enerji Şartı Konferansı Nihai Senedi, Enerji Şartı Antlaşması ve ekini teşkil eden kararlar ile Enerji Verimliliğine ve İlgili Çevresel Hususlara İlişkin Enerji Şartı Protokolünün Onaylanması Hakkında Karar, 2000/786 (25.05.2000) RG 12.07.2000/24107.
70. Dünya Sağlık Örgütü Tütün Kontrolü Çerçeve Sözleşmesi’nin Onaylanması Hakkında Karar, 2004/8235 (08.12.2004) RG 25.12.2004/25681.
71. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Hükümeti ile Bangladeş Halk Cumhuriyeti Hükümeti Arasında Yatırımların Karşılıklı Teşviki ve Korunmasına İlişkin Anlaşma ile “Notalar”ın Onaylanması Hakkında Karar, 1056, (09.05.2019) RG 10.05.2019/30770 (1. Mükerrer)
72. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Hükümeti ile Belarus Cumhuriyeti Hükümeti Arasında Yatırımların Karşılıklı Teşviki ve Korunmasına İlişkin Anlaşmanın Onaylanması Hakkında Karar, 6535, (12.12.2022) RG 13.12.2022/32042.
73. TürkiYe CumhuriYeti Hükümeti ile Özbekistan CumhuriYeti Hükümeti Arasında Yatırımların Karşılıklı Teşviki ve Korunmasına İlişkin Anlaşmanın OnaYlanması Hakkında Karar, 2329, (01.04.2020) RG 02.04.2020/31087.
74. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti ile Kırgız Cumhuriyeti Arasında Yatırımların Karşılıklı Teşviki ve Korunmasına İlişkin Anlaşmanın Onaylanması Hakkında Karar, 1470, (15.08.2019) RG 16.08.2019/30860.
75. Hosking J and Perkams M. ‘The Protection of Intellectual PropertY Rights Through International Investment Agreements: Only A Romance Or True Love?' < https://www.transnational-dispute-management.com/article.asp?keY=1447 > Erişim Tarihi 12 Mart 2024.
76. IISD, ‘Best Practices Indirect Expropriation’ Erişim Tarihi 2 Mart 2024.
77. Investment PoLİcy Hub, ‘International Investment Agreements Navigator' Erişim Tarihi 2 Mart 2024.
78. PharmaTimes, ‘Merck & Co Horrified As Brazil Breaks Patent On AIDS Drug' Erişim Tarihi 20 Mart 2024.
79. The New York Times, ‘Tobacco Firms' Strategy Limits Poorer Nations' Smoking Laws' Erişim tarihi 28 Şubat 2024.
80. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), ‘International Investment Agreements Navigator' Erişim tarihi 29 Şubat 2024.
81. UNCTAD, 'Scope And Definition, UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements II' https://unctad.org/sYstem/ files/official-document/diaeia20102_en.pdf > Erişim tarihi 1 Şubat 2024.
82. UNCTAD, ‘International Investment Agreements Navigator' < https://investmentpolicY.unctad.org/international-investment-agreements > Erişim Tarihi 21 Şubat 2024.
83. UNCTAD, ‘Series On Issues İn International Investment Agreements-Taking of Property' https://unctad.org/sYstem/files/official-document/psiteiitd15.en.pdf > Erişim Tarihi 1 Mart 2024.
84. WHO, ‘Framework Convention on Tobacco Control' https://fctc.who.int/publications/i/item/9241591013 > Erişim Tarihi 22 Şubat 2024
85. WHO, Plain Packaging of Tobacco Products: Evidence, Design and Implementation < https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/ 207478/9789241565226_eng.pdf;jsessionid=61CA4A22D3760D7FD84010707BDCBFBB?sequence=1 > Erişim Tarihi 28 Şubat 2024.
86. WIP0, ‘WIP0- Administered Treaties' https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ Erişim Tarihi: 21 Ocak 2024.
87. WIPO, ‘SummarY of The Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization' (WIPO Convention) (1967)' Erişim tarihi: 21 Ocak 2024.
88. WTO, ‘Intellectual PropertY: Protection and Enforcement' Erişim tarihi 21 Aralık 2023.
89. WT0, ‘Dispute Settlement Activity- Some Figures' Erişim tarihi 27 Ocak 2024.
90. WTO, ‘Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health' Erişim Tarihi 1 Mart 2024.