Mal Üzerindeki Üçüncü Kişilere Ait Fikri Mülkiyet Haklarının İngiliz Satım Hukuku Işığında Değerlendirilmesi

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 21 Sayı: 1, 21 - 38, 01.01.2017

Şerife Esra Kiraz

Öz

Gelişen teknoloji ile birlikte bugün çok farklı şeyler fi kri mülkiyet hukukunun konusu haline gelmiştir. Bunun sonucu olarak da mallar bütün olarak ya da parçaları dolayısıyla fi kri mülkiyet hakkı kapsamında korunmaya başlamıştır. Tüm bu gelişmeler yaşanırken, artan ticari faaliyetler ile birlikte, satılan mallar üzerinde satım sözleşmesine taraf olmayan üçüncü kişilerin, söz konusu mallar üzerinde fi kri mülkiyet hakları olduğunu ya da bu malların var olan fi kri mülkiyet haklarını ihlal ettiği iddiasında bulunması da sıkça rastlanan durumlar haline gelmiştir. Bu durum da fi kri mülkiyet haklarının sadece, fi kri mülkiyet hukuku açısından değil, satım hukuku açısından da değerlendirilmesi gerekliliği ortaya çıkmaktadır. Üçüncü kişilerin mal üzerinde ileri sürdüğü fi kri mülkiyet hakları ve bu haklarının ihlali iddiaları kapsamında, alıcının satıcıya karşı ileri sürebileceği haklar ve kapsamı İngiliz Mal Satım Kanunu (The Sale of Goods Act 1979) ışığında değerlendirilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Fikri mülkiyet, Üçüncü Kişi Fikri Mülkiyet Hakları, Mal Satımı, İngiliz Hukuku, İngiliz Mal Satım Kanunu

THE EXAMINATION OF THIRD PARTY’S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS UNDER THE UK SALES LAW

Öz

As a result of the developments in technology, the various types of things become the subject of intellectual property law. Therefore, considerable number of goods subjected to intellectual property rights (IPRs) as a whole or partially. As a consequence of these developments and increase in commercial activity, it is highly likely that a third party who is not a party to the sales contract claimed either their IPRs over the goods in question or infringement of these rights. Hence, it is necessary to examine IPRs not only based on intellectual property law but also sales law. The buyer’s rights against the seller and its scope when a third party raised IPRs and infringement claims over the goods in question is examined under the Sale of Goods Act 1979.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Intellectual Property, Third Party Intellectual Property, Sale of Goods, English Law, The UK Sale of Goods Act 1979

Kaynakça

• Atiyah, P S/ Adams, John N/ MacQueen, Hector: Atiyah’s Sale of Goods,12th Ed, Pearson, Essex, 2010
• Battersby G ve Preston, A D; ‘The Concepts of “Property,” “Title” and “Owner” Used in the Sale of Goods Act 1893’ MLR, Vol.35, 1972, s.268-288
• BBC News, ‘Patent Wars: Tech Giants sue Samsung and Google’ (1 Kasım 2013) (http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-24771421, erişim, 9.4.2017)
• Bradgate, Robert Commercial Law, Butterworths, London, 2000
• Bradgate, Robert; ‘Consumer rights in digital products: A research report prepared for the UK Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, 2010, (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_ data/fi le/31837/10-1125-consumer-rights-in-digital-products.pdf, erişim, 28.3.2017)
• Bridge, Michael ve diğerleri: Benjamin’ s Sale of Goods, 8th edition (Inc. Supp), Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2010
• Bridge, Michael; The Sale of Goods, 3rd edition, OUP, Oxford 2013
• Cohen, George M: ‘Implied Terms and Interpretation in Contract Law’ Encyclopedia of Law and Economics, Vol 3, 2000, s.78-99
• Cusumano, Michael; ‘Technology strategy and management The puzzle of Apple’ Communications of the ACM, Vol. 51(9), 2008, s.22-30
• Hargreaves, Ian; ‘Digital opportunity: A review of intellectual property and growth’, 2011 (http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipreview-fi nalreport.pdf, erişim 28.3.2107)
• Hazen, Thomas Lee; ‘Contract Principles as a Guide for Protecting Intellectual Property Rights in Computer Software: The Limits of Copyright Protection, the Evolving Concept of Derivative Works, and the Proper Limits of Licensing Arrangements’ UC Davis Law Review, Vol 20, 1986, s.105-158
• Ho, L C; ‘Some Refl ection on “Property” and “Title” in the Sale of Goods Act’ CLJ, 1997, s.571-598
• Honoré, Anthony M; ‘Ownership’ in A. G. Gordon (eds) Oxford essays in jurisprudence a collaborative work OUP, London, 1961
• Law Commission, Implied Terms in Contracts for Supply of Goods (Law Com. No 95, 1979)
• McKendrick, Ewan (eds); Goode on Commercial Law, 4th Ed, Penguin Books, London, 2010
• Merges, Robert P;‘Contracting into liability rules: Intellectual property rights and collective rights organizations’ California Law Review, Vol 84(5), 1996, s.1293-1393
• Nimmer, Raymond T. Nimmer; ‘Breaking Barriers: The Relation Between Contract and Intellectual Property Law’ Berkeley Technology Law Journal , Vol 13, 1998, s.827-889 (http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/ viewcontent.cgi?article=1196&context=btlj, erişim, 9.4.2017)
• NTV Haber, ‘Apple-Samsung Davası Sonuçlandı’ (6 Aralık 2016)(http://www.ntv.com.tr/teknoloji/apple-samsung-davasisonuclandi,BLx3c1Gcn0qMhINR5-imeA, erişim, 9.4.2017)
• Reuters, ‘HTC ‘One Mini’ faces UK ban after court ruling on patent infringement’ (3 Aralık 2013) (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-htc-nokiainfringement-idUSBRE9B301H20131204, erişim 22.04.2017)
• Surlu, Mehmet Handan: Açıklamalı-İçtihatlı Taşınmaz Satış Vaadi Satış Vaadine Dayalı Tapu İptali-Tescil ve Elatmanın Önlenmesi Davaları, 3. Baskı, Seçkin, Ankara, 2014
• Thomas, Sean; ‘Sale of Goods and Intellectual Property: Problems with Ownership’ Intellectual Property Forum: journal of the Intellectual and Industrial Property Society of Australia and New Zealand, Vol. 96, 2014, s.25-43 (http://dro.dur.ac.uk/17466/2/17466.pdf, erişim, 9.4.2017)
• Ulph, Janet; ‘Confl icts of title and the Obligations of the Seller’ in Ewan McKendrick (eds), Sale of Goods, LLP, London, 2000
• Athens Cape Naviera SA v Deutsche Dampfschiffahrts-Gesellschaft Hansa AG (The Barenbels) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 528
• Blomqvist v Rolex SA [2014] ETMR 38
• Empresa Exportadora De Azucar (CUBAZUCAR) v Industria Azucarera Nacional SA (IANSA) (The Playa Larga), [1983] 2 Llyod’s Rep. 171
• HTC Corporation v Nokia Corporation [2013] EWCA 3778(Pat)
• HTC Europe Co Ltd v Apple Inc [2013] EWCA Civ 451
• Microbeads A.G. and Another v Vinhurst Road Markings Ltd [1975] 1 WLR 218
• Monforts v. Marsden (1895) 12 R.P.C. 266
• Niblett Ltd v Confectioners’ Materials Co, Ltd [1921] 3 KB 387
• Niblett Ltd v Confectioners’ Materials Co, Ltd [1921] 37 TLR 653
• Rubicon Computer Systems Ltd v United Paints Ltd (2000) 2 T.C.L.R. 453
• The UK Sale of Goods Act, s.12