İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası

GÖNDERBİLGİ
EnglishTürkçe

Araştırma Makalesi


DOI :10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.4.0006   IUP :10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.4.0006    Tam Metin (PDF)

Güncel Gelişmeler Işığında Ortalama Tüketici Ölçütünün Yeniden Yorumlanması

Gül Büyükkılıç

Marka hukukunda “ortalama tüketici”, bir ürünün veya hizmetin hedef kitlesini temsil eden ve marka tescili veya ihlali durumlarında dikkate alınan bir ölçüttür. Bu ölçüt, tüketici davranışlarını ve algılarını değerlendirme ve belirli bir markanın tescil edilebilirliği veya ihlali konusunda karar vermede belirleyici bir role sahiptir. AB ve Türk marka mevzuatında tanımı yapılmamış olan ortalama tüketici, doktrin ve yargı kararlarında “makul seviyede bilgilendirilmiş ve makul seviyede dikkatli ve tedbirli kimse” şeklinde formüle edilmiş olmakla beraber, özellikle elektronik ticaretin gittikçe önem kazandığı, pazar şartlarının her geçen gün değiştiği ve bu çerçevede tüketicinin algısının da geleneksel anlayıştan farklı bir şekle büründüğü günümüzde ortalama tüketicinin formüle edilmesinin somut olay değerlendirmesinde yargıya gereken esnekliği sağlamaktan uzak olduğu yadsınamaz bir gerçektir. Ortalama tüketici ölçütünün disiplinler arası bir yaklaşımla ele alınmasının ve karıştırılma ihtimalinin global değerlendirmesi kapsamında fiili kullanım ve karıştırılma ihtimaline ilişkin anket delili ve kamuoyu araştırması delillerinin de dahil edilmesinin somut uyuşmazlıkların daha objektif bir zeminde çözümlenmesi bakımından faydalı olacağı düşünülmektedir. 

Anahtar Kelimeler: Ortalama Tüketici, İlgili Halk, Temsili Tüketici, Hedef Kitle, Makul Ölçüde Bilgilenmiş Tüketici, Bilgilenmiş Tüketici, Uzman Tüketici, Tüketici Algısı
DOI :10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.4.0006   IUP :10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.4.0006    Tam Metin (PDF)

Reinterpretation of the Average Consumer Benchmark considering Recent Developments

Gül Büyükkılıç

In trademark law, the “average consumer” is a benchmark that represents the target audience of a product or service and is considered in cases of trademark registration or infringement. This criterion plays a decisive role in assessing consumer behaviour and perceptions and deciding on the registrability or infringement of a particular trademark. Although the average consumer has been formulated as “a person who is reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect” by the doctrine and judicial decisions, it is an undeniable fact that the formulation of the average consumer is far from providing the necessary flexibility to the judiciary in the evaluation of the concrete case, especially today, when electronic commerce is gaining importance, market conditions are changing day by day, and the perception of the consumer has taken a different shape from the traditional understanding. An interdisciplinary approach to the average consumer criterion and the inclusion of survey evidence and public opinion survey evidence regarding actual use and likelihood of confusion within the scope of the global assessment of likelihood of confusion would be beneficial in terms of resolving concrete disputes on a more objective basis.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Average Consumer, Relevant Public, Representative Consumer, Targeted Consumer, Reasonably Well-informed Consumer, Well-informed Consumer, Specialised Consumer, And Consumer Perception

GENİŞLETİLMİŞ ÖZET


In trademark law, the average consumer is a measure that represents the target audience of a product or service and is used as a reference in cases of trademark registration or trademark infringement, and has a decisive role in evaluating consumer behaviour and perceptions and deciding on the registrability or infringement of a particular trademark or product. Indeed, one of the most important tools in the registration of a trademark and determination of the scope of protection is the likelihood of confusion between signs, and the registration request of a sign that is likely to be confused, including the likelihood of being associated by the publicise to its sameness or similarity with a registered or previously applied trademark and the sameness or similarity of the goods or services covered by it, is rejected upon objection [Industrial Property Law No 6769 (IPL) Art 6/1]. Again, the registration or unregistered use of such a sign constitutes an infringement of the trademark right with the previous registration date and may be prevented by the trademark right holder [Art 7/2(b) of the IPL, Art 29/1 of the IPL].

The IPL has preferred to use the term “by the public” in relation to the similarity assessment of trademarks within the scope of the likelihood of confusion. However, it is accepted in both doctrine and judicial decisions that the expression “likelihood of confusion, including the likelihood of association by the public” used by the legislator does not mean all segments of the society, but the specific environment that faces the danger of association or confusion. In other words, in all these cases, the person whose perception is taken as the basis in determining the likelihood of confusion is the “average consumer”.

Although most of the disputes regarding trademark law arise on the axis of likelihood of confusion, the “average consumer”, which is taken as a criterion in the evaluation, is not defined in the IPL or the Regulation on the Implementation of the Industrial Property Law, nor is there any regulation on its scope and limits in the trademark legislation. On the other hand, it is determined that the average consumer is defined in secondary regulations in two different areas. These are the Regulation on Commercial Advertising and Unfair Commercial Practises (Art 4/1-j) and the Turkish Food Codex Regulation on Nutrition Declarations (Art 4/1-f).

In the judicial decisions on the subject, the average consumer is formulated as reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, but the level of information, attention and caution required may be evaluated differently within the framework of various criteria such as the nature of the goods/services or the nature of the buyer group[1].Indeed, while the presumptive level is higher in certain groups of goods/services, it may be at an average level in others. As a matter of fact, it is accepted that consumers will generally not act carefully in terms of products that are used by all segments of society in daily life.

The average consumer group criterion used in trademark registration and infringement proceedings is the product of a norm-based practise that follows the legal or policy objectives underlying trademark law. Although the average consumer criterion as “a reasonably informed and reasonably cautious and prudent person” provides convenience to the decision-makers, it is insufficient because it does not take into account the scientific data on how consumer perceptions are actually directed. The replacement of traditional commerce by electronic commerce affects the purchasing behaviour of consumers and shapes consumer perception. The criteria determined within this framework make it impossible to make decisions on the subject on an objective and equitable basis.

This paper does not aim to eliminate the criterion of the average consumer, but it may be time to adopt a more empirically grounded approach to the average consumer. First of all, the norm-infused structure of the average consumer is fictional in three senses: attention, knowledge and vigilance. This triple artificiality leads to a nonnegligible disconnect between what trademark law recognises and what reality is. Adding more reality to thisremodelling process and interpreting the average consumer as objectively as possible requires an interdisciplinary work between behavioural sciences and legal science. On the other hand, it is considered that the actual use of the trademark should also be taken into account as part of the global assessment in the likelihood of confusion assessment, and a more empirically based structure should be established by applying survey evidence in proving the likelihood of confusion. 


PDF Görünüm

Referanslar

  • Aaker DA ve Joachimsthaler E, Brand Leadership (The Free Press 2000). google scholar
  • Aksoy MA, ‘2005/29/AT Haksız Ticari Uygulamalar Direktifinde Düzenlenen Haksız Rekabet Halleri ve Uygulama Örnekleri’ (2015) 73(1) İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası 279-318. google scholar
  • Alemanno A, ‘Balancing Free Movement and Public Health: The Case of Minimum Unit Pricing of Alcohol in Scotch Whisky’ (2016) 53 CMLR 1037-1063. google scholar
  • Anderson SP, Palma A ve Thisse JF, Discrete Choice Theory of Product Differentiation (MIT Press 1992). google scholar
  • Anemaet L,‘The Fairy Tale of the Average Consumer: Why We Should Not Rely on the Real Consumer When Assessing the Likelihood of Confusion’ (2020) 69 GRUR Int 1008-1026. google scholar
  • Arkan S, Marka Hukuku, Cilt 1, (Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Yayınları, Ankara 1997). google scholar
  • Ayhan R, Çağlar H, Yıldız B ve İmirlioğlu D, Sınai Mülkiyet Hukuku (Adalet, Ankara 2021). google scholar
  • Bahadır Z, Markanın Hükümsüzlüğü ve İptali (Turhan Kitabevi, Ankara 2018). google scholar
  • Bakamitsos GA ve Siomkos GJ, ‘Context Effects in Marketing Practice: The Case of Mood’ (2004) 3(4) Journal of Consumer Behaviour 304-314. google scholar
  • Bargh JA, ‘The Automaticity of Everyday Life’, içinde RS Wyer ve JA Bargh (eds) The Automaticity of Everyday Life: Advances in Social Cognition (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc 1997). google scholar
  • Beebe B, ‘An Empirical Study of the Multifactor Tests for Trademark Infringement’ (2006) 94 California Law Review 1581-1654. google scholar
  • Bently L, Sherman B, Gangjee D ve Johnson P, Intellectual Property Law (5th edn, Oxford University Press 2018) google scholar
  • Bereskin DR, ‘Likelihood of Confusion: The Irrational Basis of Trade Mark Protection’, (2019) 14(3) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 223-229. google scholar
  • Bradford LR, ‘Emotion, Dilution and the Trademark Consumer’ (2008) 23 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 1227-1298. google scholar
  • Christensen GL, DeRosia ED ve Lee TR, ‘Sophistication, Bridging the Gap, and the Likelihood of Confusion: An Empirical and Theoretical Analysis’ (2008) 98 TMR 913-949. google scholar
  • Çifçi S ve Ruziye C, ‘Marka ve Marka Yönetimi Kavramları: Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Kot Pantolon Marka Tercihlerine Yönelik Bir Araştırma’ (2007) 44 Finans Politik & Ekonomik Yorumlar 69-88. google scholar
  • Çolak U, Türk Marka Hukuku (5. Baskı, On İki Levha Yayıncılık 2023). google scholar
  • Çolak U, ‘Türk Marka Hukukunda Karıştırma’ (2013) Marka Hukukunda Güncel Gelişmeler Sempozyumu 24-38. google scholar
  • Davis J, ‘Locating the Average Consumer: His Judicial Origins, Intellectual Influences and Current Role in European Trade Mark Law’ (2005) 2 IPQ 183-203. google scholar
  • Dibb S ve Simkin L, ‘Targeting, Segments and Positioning’ (1991) 9 International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 4-10. google scholar
  • Dinwoodie GB ve Gangjee DS, ‘The Image of the Consumer in European Trade Mark Law’, içinde D Leczykiewicz and S Weatherill (eds) The Image(s) of the Consumer in EU Law (Hart 2015). google scholar
  • Dinwoodie GB, ‘The Europeanisation of Trade Mark Law’, içinde A Ohly ve J Pila (eds) The Europeanisation of Intellectual Property Law (Oxford University Press 2013). google scholar
  • Dirikkan H, Tanınmış Markanın Korunması (Seçkin, Ankara 2003). google scholar
  • Drawbaugh K, Brands in the Balance Meeting the Challenges of Commercial Identity (Reuters 2001). google scholar
  • Epçeli S, Marka Hukukunda Karıştırılma İhtimali (Legal Yayınevi, İstanbul 2006). google scholar
  • Evans J, ‘Dual-Processing Accounts of Reasoning, Judgment, and Social Cognition’ (2008) 59 Annu Rev Psychol 255-278. google scholar
  • Faure M ve Luth H, ‘Behavioural Economics in Unfair Contract Terms - Cautions and Considerations’ (2011) 34 Journal of Consumer Policy 337-358. google scholar
  • Fhima, I, ‘Introducing Reality into Trade Mark Law’ (2014) 9 JIPLP 684-687. google scholar
  • Fhima I, ‘Trade Mark Law Meets Branding?’, içinde Deven R. Desai, Ioannis Lianos ve Spencer Weber Waller (eds) Brands, Competition Law and IP (CUP 2015). google scholar
  • Fhima I ve Denvir C, ‘An Empirical Analysis of the Likelihood of Confusion Factors in European Trade Mark Law’ (2015) 46 IIC 310-339. google scholar
  • Fhima I ve Gangjee DS, The Confusion Test in European Trade Mark Law (Oxford University Press 2019). google scholar
  • Gangjee D, ‘Property in Brands: The Commodification of Conversation’ in H Howe and J Griffiths (eds) Property Concepts in Intellectual Property Law (CUP 2013). google scholar
  • Güneş İ, “Marka Kimliği ve Markalar” Uluslararası Sempozyumu, (2014) 9(94) Terazi Hukuk Dergisi 70-72. google scholar
  • Güneş İ, Sınai Mülkiyet Kanunu Işığında Uygulamalı Patent ve Faydalı Model Hukuku (4. Baskı, Seçkin 2021). google scholar
  • Güven, Koray, ‘Reklam Hukuku Perspektifinden Avrupa Birliği, Alman, Türk Hukuklarında Tüketici Ölçütü: Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanı’nın “Gut Springheide” Kararı Üzerinden Bir İnceleme’ (2015) 28 (129) Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi 493-508. google scholar
  • Holbrook MB ve Hirschman EC, ‘The Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Consumer Fantasies, Feelings and Fun’ (1982) 9(2) Journal of Consumer Research 132-140. google scholar
  • Huang V, Weatherall K ve Webster E, ‘The Use of Survey Evidence in Australian Trade Mark and Passing Off Cases’, içinde Andrew T Kenyon, Ng-Loy Wee Loon ve Megan Richardson (eds), The Law of Reputation and Brands in the Asia Pacific (CUP 2012). google scholar
  • Incardona R ve Poncibo C, ‘The average consumer, the unfair commercial practices directive, and the cognitive revolution’ (2007) 1 Journal of Consumer Policy Issue 21-38. google scholar
  • İmirlioğu D, 6769 Sayılı Sınai Mülkiyet Kanunu’na Göre Marka Hukukunda Ayırt Edicilik ve Markanın Ayırt Ediciliğinin Zedelenmesi (Adalet Yayınevi, Ankara 2018). google scholar
  • Jacoby J, ‘Is it Rational to Assume Consumer Rationality? Some Consumer Psychological Perspectives on Rational Choice Theory’ (2000) NYU, Ctr for Law and Business Research Paper No. 00-09. google scholar
  • Jehoram TC, van Nispen C ve Huydecoper T, European Trademark Law. Community Trademark Law and Harmonized National Trademark Law (Kluwer International 2010). google scholar
  • Jolls CM, Sunstein C ve Thaler RH, ‘A Behavioral Approach to Law and Economics’ (1998) 50(5) Stanford Law Review 1471-1550. google scholar
  • Kahneman D ve Frederick S, ‘Representativeness Revisited: Attribute Substitution in Intuitive Judgment’, içinde T Gilovich et al (eds) Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (CUP 2002). google scholar
  • Karayel, Berk, ‘Türk marka hukukunda karıştırılma ihtimali ekseninde ortalama tüketici kavramı’, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi (Kadir Has Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, 2019). google scholar
  • Kaya A, Marka Hukuku (Arıkan, İstanbul 2006) 140-141. google scholar
  • Kihistrom JF, ‘The Cognitive Unconscious’ (1987) 237 Science 1445-1452. google scholar
  • Koşer N, ‘Tasarım Hukukunda Bilgilenmiş Kullanıcı Kavramı’ (2012) 12(1) İnönü University Law Review 380-393. google scholar
  • Koşer N, ‘Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanı Genel Mahkemesi’nin 7 Şubat 2019 Tarihli “Swemac” Kararı ve Bu Kararın Türk Hukuku Açısından Değerlendirilmesi - Marka Hukukunda Önceki Tarihli Hakların Etkisine İlişkin Bir İnceleme’ (2020) 5(1-2), Arş. Gör. Ceren Damar Şenel Armağanı, Çankaya Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 2151 (Marka Hukuku), 2151-2169. google scholar
  • Kurt E, Uygulamalı Marka Hukuku (2. Baskı, Seçkin, İstanbul 2020). google scholar
  • Küçükali C, Marka Hukukunda Karıştırma İhtimali (Seçkin, Ankara 2009). google scholar
  • Küçükdağlı A, ‘Avrupa Birliği, Alman, Türk Hukuklarında Tüketici Modelleri’ (2020) 2(2) Türk-Alman Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 145-178. google scholar
  • Laustsen RD, The Average Consumer in Confusion-based Disputes in European Trademark Law and Similar Fictions (Springer: Cham, Switzerland 2019). google scholar
  • Kaya, A, Marka Hukuku (Arikan, İstanbul 2006). google scholar
  • Laustsen RD, The Average Consumer in Confusion-based Disputes in European Trade- mark Law and Similar Fictions (Springer: Cham, Switzerland 2019). google scholar
  • Landes WM ve Posner RA, ‘The Economics of Trademark Law’ (1988) 78 TMR 267-306. google scholar
  • Landes WM ve Posner RA, ‘Indefinitely Renewable Copyright’ (2002) John M Olin Law & Economics Working Paper No 154 (2D Series). google scholar
  • Lüken U, Brownlow P ve Aries N, ‘How Courts View Surveys in Trade Mark Cases’ (2015) MIP google scholar
  • Maeyaert P ve Muyldermans J, ‘Likelihood of Confusion in Trademark Law: A Practical Guide Based on the Case Law in Community Trade Mark Oppositions from 2002 to 2012’ (2013) 103(5) The Law Journal of the International Trademark, s. 1041-1042. google scholar
  • Maeyaert P ve Muyldermans J, ‘Likelihood of Confusion in Trademark Law: A Practical Guide Based on the Case Law in Community Trade Mark Oppositions from 2002 to 2012’ (2013) 103(5) LJINTA 1032 vd google scholar
  • Mandl M, Felfernig A, Teppan E ve Schuber M, ‘Consumer Decision Making in Knowledge-Based Recommendation’ (2011) 37 J Intell Inf Syst 1-22. google scholar
  • Morgan R, ‘Ensuring Greater Legal Certainty in OHIM Decision-Taking by Abandoning Legal Formalism’ (2012) 7 JIPLP 408-429. google scholar
  • Olshavsky, RW ve Granbois HD, ‘Consumer Decision-making - Fact or Fiction?’ (1979) 6 Journal of Consumer Research 93-100 google scholar
  • Öztek S, ‘İlaç Markalari’ (2004) 4 Kazanci Dergisi 66-72. google scholar
  • Posner R, ‘Rational Choice, Behavioural Economics, and the Law’ (1998) 50 Stanford Law Review 1551. google scholar
  • Purnhagen K, ‘More Reality in the CJEU’s Interpretation of the Average Consumer Benchmark -Also More Behavioural Science in Unfair Commercial Practices?’ (2017) 8 European Journal of Risk Regulation 437-440 google scholar
  • Purnhagen K ve Schebesta H, ‘A Case Moving at the Frontiers of Market Access, Freedom of Goods, the Common Agricultural Policy and Science in Court - Reflections on Scotch Whisky Association’ (2017) 42(3) European Law Review 437-440. google scholar
  • Rachlinski J, ‘New Law and Psychology: a Reply to Critics, Sceptics, and Cautious Supporters’ (2000) 85 Cornell Law Review 739-766. google scholar
  • Rossiter J ve Bellman S, ‘Emotional Branding Pays Off’ (2012) 52(3) Journal of Advertising Research 291-296 google scholar
  • Scott C ve Black J, Cranston’s Consumers and the Law (Butterworths, 2000). google scholar
  • Suluk C, Karasu R ve Nal T, Fikri Mülkiyet Hukuku (Güncellenmiş 7. Baskı, Seçkin 2023). google scholar
  • Sloman S, ‘Two Systems of Reasoning’, içinde T Gilovich et al (eds) Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (CUP 2002). google scholar
  • Tekinalp Ü, Fikri Mülkiyet Hukuku (Güncelleştirilmiş ve Genişletilmiş 5. Bası, Vedat Kitapçılık, İstanbul 2012). google scholar
  • Tversky A ve Kahneman D, ‘The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice’ (1981) 211 Science New Series 453-458. google scholar
  • Tekinalp Ü, Fikri Mülkiyet Hukuku (5. Baskı, Vedat Kitapçılık 2012). google scholar
  • Xiao Y, ‘A Thousand Faces of The Average Consumer: Towards A More Empirically Grounded Approach to the Infringement Test?’ (2022) 17(7) Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice 559-567. google scholar
  • Ünlüönen, K, Battal A, Yaylı A ve Yüksel S, ‘Marka İltibas Davalarında Kamuoyu Görüşünün Hukuki Sürece Dahil Edilmesi: Üç Boyutlu Bir Araştırma Örneği’ (2007) 6(22) Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 1-12. google scholar
  • Visser DJG, ‘Beslissen in IE-zaken. Verslag van een Veldonderzoek’ (2008) 31 NJB 1918-1926. google scholar
  • Weatherall K, ‘The Consumer as the Empirical Measure of Trade Mark Law’ (2017) 80 MLR 5787. google scholar
  • Yasaman H, Ayoğlu T, Yusufoğlu Bilgin F, Memiş Kartal P, Yüksel SH ve Yasaman Z, Sınai Mülkiyet Kanunu Şerhi, Cilt 2 (Seçkin Yayıncılık, İstanbul 2021) google scholar
  • Yusufoğlu F, Patent Verilebilirlik Şartları (İstanbul 2014). google scholar

Atıflar

Biçimlendirilmiş bir atıfı kopyalayıp yapıştırın veya seçtiğiniz biçimde dışa aktarmak için seçeneklerden birini kullanın


DIŞA AKTAR



APA

Büyükkılıç, G. (2024). Güncel Gelişmeler Işığında Ortalama Tüketici Ölçütünün Yeniden Yorumlanması. İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası, 0(0), -. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.4.0006


AMA

Büyükkılıç G. Güncel Gelişmeler Işığında Ortalama Tüketici Ölçütünün Yeniden Yorumlanması. İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası. 2024;0(0):-. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.4.0006


ABNT

Büyükkılıç, G. Güncel Gelişmeler Işığında Ortalama Tüketici Ölçütünün Yeniden Yorumlanması. İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası, [Publisher Location], v. 0, n. 0, p. -, 2024.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Büyükkılıç, Gül,. 2024. “Güncel Gelişmeler Işığında Ortalama Tüketici Ölçütünün Yeniden Yorumlanması.” İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası 0, no. 0: -. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.4.0006


Chicago: Humanities Style

Büyükkılıç, Gül,. “Güncel Gelişmeler Işığında Ortalama Tüketici Ölçütünün Yeniden Yorumlanması.” İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası 0, no. 0 (Dec. 2024): -. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.4.0006


Harvard: Australian Style

Büyükkılıç, G 2024, 'Güncel Gelişmeler Işığında Ortalama Tüketici Ölçütünün Yeniden Yorumlanması', İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası, vol. 0, no. 0, pp. -, viewed 7 Dec. 2024, https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.4.0006


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Büyükkılıç, G. (2024) ‘Güncel Gelişmeler Işığında Ortalama Tüketici Ölçütünün Yeniden Yorumlanması’, İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası, 0(0), pp. -. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.4.0006 (7 Dec. 2024).


MLA

Büyükkılıç, Gül,. “Güncel Gelişmeler Işığında Ortalama Tüketici Ölçütünün Yeniden Yorumlanması.” İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası, vol. 0, no. 0, 2024, pp. -. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.4.0006


Vancouver

Büyükkılıç G. Güncel Gelişmeler Işığında Ortalama Tüketici Ölçütünün Yeniden Yorumlanması. İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası [Internet]. 7 Dec. 2024 [cited 7 Dec. 2024];0(0):-. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.4.0006 doi: 10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.4.0006


ISNAD

Büyükkılıç, Gül. “Güncel Gelişmeler Işığında Ortalama Tüketici Ölçütünün Yeniden Yorumlanması”. İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası 0/0 (Dec. 2024): -. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.4.0006



ZAMAN ÇİZELGESİ


Gönderim15.04.2024
Kabul08.10.2024
Çevrimiçi Yayınlanma24.10.2024

LİSANS


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


PAYLAŞ




İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları, uluslararası yayıncılık standartları ve etiğine uygun olarak, yüksek kalitede bilimsel dergi ve kitapların yayınlanmasıyla giderek artan bilimsel bilginin yayılmasına katkıda bulunmayı amaçlamaktadır. İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları açık erişimli, ticari olmayan, bilimsel yayıncılığı takip etmektedir.