Constitutional Court Cancels other Provisions of Decree-Law No. 556 on Trademarks
With two new decisions the Constitutional Court continues to chip away other provisions of Decree-Law No. 556 on trademarks further eroding and weakening the legislative basis of the protection of IP rights.
To put the issue into context reference is made to the articles published in:
– ILO (International Law Office) on 13 October 2014
– Mondaq on December 2014/January 2015
indicating the series of similarly motivated constitutional court decisions revoking provisions from the Decree-Law No. 551 on Patents & Utility Models, No. 556 on Trademarks and from the Copyright Act No. 5846.
Case 2015/49, Decision 2015/46, May 13, 2015
In this case the Constitutional Court decided to cancel the provision of Article 16(5)1 of Decree-
Law No. 556 on Trademarks at the request of the 3rd IP Court of Ankara made on the basis of Article 152 of the Constitution.
Facts and Motivations of the 3rd IP Court of Ankara
Article 16(5)1 regulates the issue of assignment of trademarks and reads as follows:
“During the assignment (recordal) of a registered trademark, other trademarks identical or almost identical to the assigned trademark and registered in respect of goods and services identical or similar to those of the assigned trademark to the point of confusing/deceiving the public must also be assigned”.
The 3rd IP Court of Ankara requested the cancellation of not only Article 16(5)1 but also of Article 7/1(b) on ground that both provisions apply to the principle of “single ownership of a trademark” and that the provisions of Article 7/1(b) and 7/1(b) cited under absolute grounds of refusal concern the rights of prior under relative grounds of refusal. The Court of Ankara further asserted that the compulsory assignment requirement provided under Article 16(5) being tied to the principle of “single ownership of a trademark” as provided in Article 7/1(b) its application is a matter of “Public order” and that Article 16(5) according to which rules should be applied equally and be predictable, objective and coherent. Concluding that Article 16(5) does not meet such requirements of the State of Law the Court of Ankara requested the cancellation of this provision on the following three grounds:
Click here for the full article.
Deris Attorney at Law Partnership