Court Decision about Industrial Design

Supreme Court of Appeal, 11^st Civil Department

Case No: 2005/12763

Decision No: 2007/4020

Date: 06.03.2007

Related Law/Article: Decree Law No. 554 Pertaining to Protection of Industrial Designs/ Article 3, 5, 6, 7, 61

·         ESTABLISHMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT OF RIGHTS OF  DESIGN

·         NOT CONSULTING THE HOLDER OF THE DESIGN

·         NO INFRINGEMENT OF THE RIGHTS OF DESIGN

Plaintiff’s counsel claimed that the defendant and his client produced and sold furniture and home accessories. Furthermore, the plaintiff’s counsel asserted that, as a result of the evaluation, the defendant company claimed that the design “Çinili Kupa” produced by the plaintiff was similar to their product. Yet, the plaintiff’s counsel claimed that their product “Çinili Kupa”  had no alikeness to the goods introduced by the defendant company and they demanded an establishment and pleaded that there was no confusion or adaptation between the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s design.

Defendant’s counsel stated that all the furniture and accessories, belonging to his client, were registered. He also indicated it was detected that the designs of the client, including the vase which was the subject matter of the case, was copied by the plaintiff. Hence, the defendant’s counsel suggested  dismissal of the case because of the impossibility of claiming a declaratory action.

The court ruled that the holder of the design was notified by the plaintiff regarding the case to be filed, the design differed from one another and considering the general impression left on the conscious consumer, it was decided that the design of the plaintiff is not similar to the registered design of the defendant or a copy of it.

The case was dismissed. The plaintiff appealed to the decision.

Supreme Court of Appeal ruled that the decision of Ankara Civil Court of Intellectual and Property Rights is in compliance with the law and rejected the appeal.