Avrupa Marka Hakları İle Paralel Tİcaret Arasındakİ Çatışmanın Yenİden Değerlendİrİlmesİ

Yıl 2015, Sayı: 64, 3 - 26, 01.12.2015

Özgür Arıkan

Öz

Avrupa marka hukuku alanında devam eden iki önemli gelişme bulunmaktadır. Bunlar; çifte ayniyet kuralı altında marka haklarının ABAD kararları ile genişletilmesi ve üye ülkelerin markalara ilişkin kanunlarını yakınlaştırma amacı taşıyan Avrupa Parlementosu ve Avrupa konseyi’nin 2015/2436 Avrupa Marka Direktifi’nin yürülüğe girmesidir. Bu makale, söz konusu gelişmelerin Avrupa marka haklarının tükenmesi doktirinine olan etkilerini incelemek için, marka sahiplerine üçüncü kişilerin markalarını izinsiz kullanmasını önlemek için ayrıcalıklı haklar tanıyan üye ülkelerin marka hukukları ile Avrupa Ekonomik Alanı içerisinde parallel ticareti meşru kılarak marka içi rekabet yaratan Avrupa Birliğinin malların serbest dolaşımı ilkesi arasındaki uzun süredir tanınan çatışmanın yeniden değerlendirilmesini amaçlamaktadır

Anahtar Kelimeler

Markanın korunması, Parallel Ticaret, Marka İçi rekabet

REvISITING THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN TRADE MARK RIGHTS AND PARALLEL IMPORTATION

Öz

There are two crucial on-going developments regarding the European trade mark law. These are; the expansion of trade mark protection under the double identity clause by the case law of the CJEU and entry into force of the Trade Marks Directive EU 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks. This article aims to revisit the long-recognized conflict between the trade mark laws of the Member States, which provides exclusive rights for trade mark owners at a national level to prevent the unauthorized use of trade marks by third parties, and the free movements of goods principle of the EU, which creates intra-brand competition through allowing the parallel importation within the European Economic Area, in order to view the impact of the recent developments on the European exhaustion doctrine

Anahtar Kelimeler

Trade Mark Protection, Parallel Importation, Intra-brand Competition, European Exhaustion, the Court of Justice of the European Union

Kaynakça

• ARIKAN, Ö. (2016), Trade Mark Rights and Parallel Importation in the European Union, Onikilevha, Istanbul, Turkey.
• AVGOUSTIS, I. (2012), “Parallel imports and exhaustion of trade mark rights: should steps be taken towards an international exhaustion regime?”, European
• Intellectual Property Law, No: 34(2), p. 108-121. BARNARD, C. (2010), The Substantive law of the EU: the four freedoms, Oxford, UK.
• BEIBER, F. (1990), “Industrial Property and the free movements of goods in the internal European market”, International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law, No: 2 (131), p. 381-436.
• BONADIO, E. (2011), “Parallel imports in a global market: should a generalised international exhaustion be the next step?”, European Intellectual Property Law, No: 33(3), p. 151-163.
• CASE COMMENT (2010), “Use of trade mark in internet search keywords examined”, EU Focus, No: 274, p. 28.
• CHARD J.S. and MELLOR C.J. (2007), “Intellectual property rights and parallel imports”, The World Economy, No: 19890 12 (1), p. 69-82.
• CHEN, H. (2009), “Gray Marketing: Does It Hurt the Manufacturers?”, Atlantic
• Economic Journal, No: 37(1), p. 23-35. CORNISH, W.R. (1999), Cases and Materials on Intellectual Property, Third
• Edition, Sweet & Maxwell, London, UK. CORNISH, W. R. (1998), “Trade marks: portcullis for the EEA?”, European
• Intellectual Property Law, No: 20(5), p. 172-177. FEROS, A. (2010), “Free movement of pharmaceuticals within the EU-should rights be exhausted regionally?”, European Intellectual Property Law, No: (10), p486-487.
• FHIMA, I.S. (2012), “The role of legitimacy in trade mark law”, Current Legal Problems, No: 65, p. 489-527.
• GANGJEE, .D. and BURRELL R. (2010), “Because You’re Worth It: L’Oreal and the Prohibition on Free Riding”, The Modern Law Review, No: 73(2), p. 282
• GRIFFITHS, A. (2011), An Economic Perspective on Trade Mark Law, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
• GROSS, N. (2001), “Trade mark exhaustion: the U.K. perspective”, European
• Intellectual Property Law, No: 23(5), p. 224-237. HAYS, T. (2004), Parallel Importation under European Union Law, Sweet & Maxwell, London, UK.
• HIRSHLEIFER, J. (1998), Price Theory and Applications, Fourth Edition
• Prentice –Hall, New Jersey, US. HORNER, S. (1987), Parallel Imports, Collins Professional Books, London, UK.
• HORTON, A. (2011), “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?”, European Intellectual Property Law, No:33(9), p. 550-558.
• JULIET, R. (1991), “Trade mark law and the free movements of goods: the overruling of the judgment in Hag” , International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law, No: 22, p. 303-327.
• KEELING, D.T. (2003), Intellectual Property Rights in EU Law-Volume 1
• Oxford University Press, UK. KORAH, V. (2007), An Introductory Guide to EC Competition Law and Practice
• Ninth Edition, Hart Publishing, Oxford, UK. KUR, A. (2015), “The EU Trademark Reform Package—(Too) Bold a Step
• Ahead or Back to Status Quo?”, Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review, No:19(1), p. 19-37. KUR, A. (2014), “Trade marks function, don’t they? CJEU jurisprudence and unfair practices”, International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, No: 45(4), p. 434-454.
• OHLY, A. (1999), “Trade marks and parallel importation-recent developments in
• European law”, International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, No: 30 (5), p.512-530. PIGOU, A.C. (1952), The Economics of Welfare, Fourth Edition, Macmillan & Co, London, UK.
• SCHMALENSEE, R. (1988), “Output and welfare implications of monopolistic third-degree price discrimination”, The American Economic Review, No: 71(1), p. 242-248.
• SENFTLEBEN, M. (2014), “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, No: 36(8), p. 518-524. SENFTLEBEN, M. (2011), “Trade Mark Protection – A Black Hole in the Intellectual Property Galaxy?”, International Review of Industrial Property and Competition Law, No: 42(4) p. 1-5.
• SIMON, I. (2005), “How does “essential function” doctrine drive European trade mark law?”, International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, No: 36(4), p. 401-420. Online Sources
• EC (2014), “History of the Single Market”, http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/20years/singlemarket20/facts-figures/ history_en.htm , Data Acccesed: 06.05.2014.
• GRUR (2013), “Opinion of the German Association for the Protection of
• Intellectual Property regarding the European Commission proposal for a recast of the Trade Mark Directive”, Recast_TM_Directive-summary_01.pdf>, Data Accessed:15.06.2016.
• INTA (2013), “International Trademark Association Comments on the Proposed
• Revisions to the EU Community Trade Mark Regulation and Trade Marks Directive”, june2013intacommentseutmsystemsreview.pdf>,Data Acccesed:15.06.2016.
• OECD (1990), “Glossary of Industrial Organisation Economics and Competition
• Law”, http://www.oecd.org/regreform/sectors/2376087.pdf, Data Accessed: 06.2016.
• UK GOVERNMENT (2013), “Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union The Single Market”, https://www.gov. uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/227069/2901084_
• SingleMarket_acc.pdf , Data Acccesed: 06.06.2016. Legislation
• DIRECTIVE 2008/95/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks
• DIRECTIVE (EU) 2015/2436 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF
• THE COUNCIL of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member
• States relating to trade marks Cases CJEU Adidas-Salomon v. Fitnessworld [2004] E.T.M.R. 10.
• Arsenal v. Reed [2001] 2 C.M.L.R. 23.
• Arsenal v. Reed [2002] E.T.M.R. 82.
• Arsenal v. Reed [2003] 1 C.M.L.R. 12.
• Bristol-Myers v. Paranova [1996] F.S.R. 225.
• Centrafarm v. Winthrop [1974] 2 C.M.L.R. 480.
• Centafarm, BV v. American Home Products [1979] 1 C.M.L.R. 326.
• Christian Dior v. Evora [1998] E.T.M.R. 26.
• Copad v Christian Dior [2009] E.T.M.R. 40.
• Davidoff v. Gofkid [2003] E.C.R I-389.
• Deutsche Grammophon v. Metro [1971] C.M. L. R. 63.
• Etablissements Consten S.A. and Grundigverkaufs –GmbH. v. E.E.C. Commission C.M.L.R. 418. Google France [2010] E.T.M.R. 30. Hag II [1990] 3 C.M.L.R. 571.
• Hoffmann-La Roche v. Centrafarm [1978] 3 C.M.L.R. 217. ınterflora v. Marks & Spencer [2012] E.T.M.R. 1. l’Oreal v. Bellure [2009] E.T.M.R.55. l’Oréal v eBay [2011] E.T.M.R. 52.
• O2 v. Hutchinson [2006] EWCA Civ 1656.
• Portakabin .v Primakabin [2010] E.T.M.R. 52.
• Viking Gas v. Kosan Gas [2011] E.T.M.R. 58. HL
• Scandecor v Scandecor (HL 4 APR 2001) [2001] E.T.M.R. 74