TURKEY
TURKEY
party relied on the fact that it registered the domain name in 1997 and accordingly they have had a right on ‘kanald’ since that time. Our other arguments and the defendant’s arguments are parallel to the claims in the UDRP Administrative Procedure.
During the court procedure, the judge requested that the Supreme
Board of Radio and Television inform the court about the date of the broadcasting licence of our client with the ‘Kanal D’ trademark and logo. Te board replied that our client had had a right to broadcast since 1995. Te related information proves that our client started to use the ‘kanal d’ trademark before the registration date of the disputed domain name
www.kanald.com.
As the case includes technical issues the judge appointed experts (IT and trademark specialists). According to the first panel of experts, the infringing content was first constituted by the defendant party in 2007 and infringement is continuing. Furthermore, the experts stated that the domain name is confusingly similar to our client’s ‘Kanal D’ trademarks. In accordance with the oppositions of the other party the judge sent the file to the experts again, to receive an additional report. Te additional report was parallel to the main report and also mentioned that our client’s ‘Kanal D’ trademark has to be accepted as a well-known trademark considering its usage since 1995.
Idil Buse Kök graduated from Bilkent University Law Faculty in 2008 and joined the Middle East Technical University (METU) International Relations department for her graduate study; she graduated in 2012. She was admitted to the Ankara Bar Association in 2009. Her primary area includes IP topics and informatics law. She is also a member of the AIPPI Turkish National Group.
Ayça Pinar Eren Yasar graduated from Ankara University Faculty of Law in 1996 and was admitted to the Ankara Bar Association in 1997. She is an expert in the area of IP, having
presented on this topic at several conferences in Turkey. Yaar is one of the founder partners of Dericioglu Yasar Law Firm with 13 years of experience. She leads a group that provides advice on all IP topics, especially infringement and counterfeiting. She is also a member of the AIPPI Turkish National Group.
Aſter all the examinations, the judge gave his decision and stated in his short judgment that our client has been actively using ‘Kanal D’ since 1994, using it as a domain name since 1996 and as a registered trademark since 1998. Te acts of the defendant, specifically registration of the domain name in 1997 and the content of the related site which is associated with our client, are unfair and prove the bad faith of the defendant. Accordingly the court decided that the infringement is continuing and has to be stopped. In addition, half of the compensation request was accepted. At this stage the decision is not yet final.
It is clear that the effective use of the Internet is gradually changing the area of trademark infringements, so that social media and domain names are key. Te UDRP Administrative Procedure is a very fast and effective way to solve generic domain name disputes when compared with domestic court proceedings. Also, because it is not possible to request the assignment of generic domain names from domestic courts, the UDRP Administrative Procedure is generally preferred by trademark owners.
However, the UDRP Administrative Procedure is not always the best option for solving disputes, especially when considering domestic facts such as determining the reputation of our client’s trademark in Turkey before 1997. In our case, the domestic court examined the claims and evidence in more detail, with the advantage of being familiar with the habits and choices of Turkish consumers.
We are of the opinion that the decision of the domestic court is a more accurate decision, compared to that of the UDRP. If the decision of the domestic court is made final in our client’s favour, we will again apply for the UDRP Administrative Procedure to request the assignment of the disputed domain name.
In these types of cases which concern local issues, the UDRP Administrative Procedure generally has a secondary role to provide the assignment of generic domain names in the light of the domestic court’s decisions.
Idil Buse Kök is an attorney at Ankara Patent Bureau Limited. She can be contacted at:
idil.kok@ankarapatent.com
Ayça Pinar Eren Yaşar is an attorney at Ankara Patent Bureau Limited. She can be contacted at:
ayca.yasar@ankarapatent.com
110 World Intellectual Property Review e-Digest 2013
www.worldipreview.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119