Avrupa Marka Hukukunun Çözümlenemeyen Meselesi: Çifte Ayniyet Kuralı -İspat Yükü Sorunu-

Öz

Son on yılda, Avrupa marka hukukunda önemli bir gelişme görülmektedir. ABAD çifte ayniyet kuralı altındaki korumayı, marka sahipleri tarafından yaratılan “marka imajı”’nın satış gücü ile ilgili olan, markanın diğer fonksiyonlarını da himaye altına almak için genişletmiştir. Fakat çifte ayniyet kuralı geleneksel olarak sadece markanın menşei gösterme fonksiyonunu korumak için tayin edilmiştir ve bundan dolayı çifte ayniyet kuralı altında sunulan koruma mutlaktır. ABAD’ın içtihat hukuku ise çifte ayniyet kuralı altındaki korumayı markanın diğer fonksiyonlarını da kapsayacak şekilde genişletmiştir. Bu sebeple, ABAD’ın yeni yaklaşımı mutlak koruma prensibini alt üst etmiştir. Çifte ayniyet kuralındaki ispat yükü, çifte ayniyet kuralı altındaki korumanın genişletilmesinin bir sonucu, sorun olarak ortaya çıkmıştır. Bu makalede yazar çifte ayniyet kuralı altında devam eden gelişmeleri, özellikle yakın zamanda baş gösteren ispat yükü sorunu açısından, Avrupa mevzuatı ve ABAD içtihat hukuku ışığında ele alacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Marka
• Marka Hukuku
• ABAD İçtihat Hukuku
• Çifte Ayniyet Kuralı
• İspat Yükü

Unsettled Matter of European Trade Mark Law: Double Identity Rule -Burden of Proof Issue-

Öz

In the last decade, there has been a crucial development under the European trade mark law. The CJEU expanded the scope of protection under the double identity rule in order to safeguard the further functions of trade mark which are related to the selling power of the “brand image” created by trade mark owners. However, the double identity rule was traditionally designated to protect merely the origin function of trade mark and therefore the protection provided under the double identity rule was absolute. The CJEU’s case law broadened the scope of the protection under the double identity rule to cover the further functions that a trade mark performs. Therefore, the CJEU’s recent approach turned the principle of “absolute protection” upside down. The “burden of the proof” under the double identity rule appeared as an issue as the result of the broader protection under the double identity rule. In this paper, the author aims to examine the ongoing developments as to the double identity rule in the light of the European legislation and the CJEU’s case law; in particular from the point of the “burden of the proof” issue which has appeared recently.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Trade Mark
• Trade Mark Law
• The CJEU's Case Law
• Double Identity Rule
• Burden of Proof

Kaynakça

1. ARIKAN, Özgür, Trade Mark Rights and Parallel Importation in the European Union, 1st Edition, Onikilevha, İstanbul, 2016.
2. Davis, Jennifer, ‘To protect or serve? European trade mark law and the decline of the public Interest’, European Intellectual Property Review, Y. 2003, V. 25, I. 4.
3. GANGJEE, Dev/BURRELL, Robert, “Because You’re Worth It: L’Oreal and the Prohibition on Free Riding”, The Modern Law Review, Y. 2010, V. 73, I. 2.
4. GIELEN, Charles, “Trademark Dilution Under European Law “, The Trademark Reporter, Y. 2014, V. 104, I. 3.
5. GRIFFITHS, Andrew, “The trade mark monopoly: an analysis of the core zone of absolute protection under Art.5.1 (a)”, Intellectual Property Quarterly, Y. 2007, I. 3.
6. HORTON, Audrey, “The implications of L’Oreal v Bellure- a retrospective and a looking forward: the essential functions of a trade mark and when is an advantage fair?”, E.I.P.R., Y. 2011, V. 33, I. 9.
7. JEHORAM, Tobias Cohen, “The Function Theory in European Trade Mark Law and the Holistic Approach of the CJEU”, The Trademark Reporter, Y. 2012,V. 102, I. 6.
8. KUR, Annette, “The EU Trademark Reform Package—(Too) Bold a Step Ahead or Back to Status Quo?” Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review, Y. 2015, V. 19, I. 1.

9. KUR, Annette, “Trade marks function, don’t they ? CJEU jurisprudence and unfair practices”, International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Y. 2014, V. 45, I. 4
10. KUR, Annette/ BENTLY, Lionel A.F./ OHLY, Ansgar, “Sweet Smells and a Sour Taste – the ECJ’s L’Oréal Decision”, Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law Research Paper Series No. 09-12, Y. 2009.
11. MORCOM, Christopher/ROUGHTON, Ashley/ST. QUINTIN, Thomas, The Modern Law of Trade Marks, 4th edition, LexisNexis, London, 2012.
12. NORMAN, Helen, “Time to blow the whistle on trade mark use?”, Intellectual Property Quarterly, Y. 2004,V. 1.
13. SENFTLEBEN, Martin, “Function theory and international exhaustion-why it is wise to confine the double identity rule to cases affecting the origin function”, European Intellectual Property Review, Y. 2014, V. 36, I. 8.
14. Senftleben, Martin, “Trade Mark Protection – A Black Hole in the Intellectual Property Galaxy?”, International Review of Industrial Property and Competition Law, Y. 2011, V. 42, I. 4.
15. TORREMANS, Paul, Holyoak&Torremans Intellectual Property Law, 6th Edition, Oxford University Express, Oxford, 2010.