Özet:

Infringement of geographical indications has been regulated by Industrial Property Code (IPC) art. 44.2, in four paragraphs. However, the concepts in this article which are used to determine the existence of infringement act have not been adequately examined by doctrine or national precedents. The articles of IPC on infringement of geographical indications have been derived from European Union Regulations (Regulation No. 1151/2012 art. 13, Regulation No. 1308/2013 art. 16 and Regulation No. 110/2008 art. 16). Therefore the jurisprudence of Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding abovementioned articles has vital importance for Turkish law and the interpretation of IPC art. 44.2. Three precedents of CJEU have been examined in this article: Scotch Whisky Decision, dated 2018, numbered C-44/17; Champagne Sorbet Decision, dated 2017, numbered C-393/16 and Cognac Decision, dated 2011, numbered C 4/10 and C 27/10. Subsequently, certain concepts that are regulated by IPC art. 44.2 have been examined in the light of these precedents. Within this framework, the concepts of “direct and indirect use” and “comparable product” have been explained. Following this, it’s discussed whether the use of a protected geographical indication’s name as part of the name of a product which contains an ingredient that does correspond to those specifications, constitutes exploitation of the reputation or not. Also, the “evocation” concept has been explained and the concept of IPC art. 44.2.b has been discussed in terms of this concept. Lastly, it has been examined if the concept of “false or misleading indication” can be accounted, when it is accompanied by correct information

Anahtar Kelimeler: