Ticaret Unvanlarının Tescili Aşamasında Ortaya Çıkan Sorunlar ve Çözüm Önerileri -Karşılaştırmalı Bir İnceleme-
Mehmet Emin Bilge, Rauf Karasu, Abdullah Altıntaş, Hakan KoçakTicaret unvanı, tacirlerin ticari ilişkilerinde kendilerini tanıtmak amacıyla kullandıkları isimlerdir. Ticaret unvanlarının tescil süreci ve usulü, unvan sahibinin, unvan sahibi dışındaki ilgili kişilerin ve kamunun menfaatini korumak için gerekli özelliklere sahip olmalıdır. Bu incelemenin konusu, Türk hukukunda ticaret unvanlarının tescil sürecini incelemek, tescil sürecinde yaşanan sorunları tespit etmek ve bu sorunların çözümü için önerilerde bulunmaktır. Çözüm önerileri konusunda doktrinde ileri sürülen görüşlerden ve karşılaştırmalı hukuktaki hukuki düzenlemelerden yararlanılmaktadır. Bu makale iki bölümden oluşmaktadır. İlk bölümde, unvanların tescil edilme süreci açıklanmaktadır. Bu kapsamda, ticaret unvanının yapısına, tescil edilmesine ilişkin genel esaslara, tescil edilebilecek ad ve işaretler ile tescili yasak veya izne tâbi olan ad ve işaretlere değinilmektedir. İkinci bölümde, ticaret unvanlarının tescil süreci, ticari ad ve işaretlerin korunması açısından değerlendirilmektedir. Bu çerçevede, tescil süreci, önceki tescilli ticaret unvanları ile diğer ticari ad ve işaretler yönünden incelenmektedir. Ayrıca her bölümde Türk hukukundan farklılaşan yönleri esas alınarak karşılaştırmalı hukukta ilgili konuya ilişkin hukuki düzenlemelere, uygulamalara ve öğretideki görüşlere de yer verilmektedir.
Problems in the Registration of Trade Names and Proposals for These Problems
Mehmet Emin Bilge, Rauf Karasu, Abdullah Altıntaş, Hakan KoçakA trade name isthe name used to identify merchantsfrom othersin their business operations. The registration procedure of trade names shall have the necessary features to protect the interests of the merchant, other relevant persons and the public. The subject of this article is to examine the registration procedure of trade names in Turkish law; to identify problems emerging during the registration process and to propose solutions for these problems. In this regard, opinions in academic studies and the regulations in comparative law are considered. This article consists of two parts. In the first part, the registration procedure for trade names is explained. In this context, the structure of trade names, general principles of registration, names and signs, which are freely registrable, prohibited, or subject to permission in trade names are mentioned. In the second part, the registration process of trade names is evaluated concerning the protection of trade names and signs. Within this framework, the registration process is examined in terms of previousregistered trade names and other trade names and signs. In addition, as based on the differentiating features from Turkish law, each title includes the regulations, practices and opinions in academic studies in comparative law.
The registration procedure of trade names shall have the necessary features to protect the interests of the merchant, other relevant persons and the public. The registration procedure should have the characteristic of being not only quick and economic but also protective against any violation to the interest of right owners. In this regard, we recommend the following issues be taken into consideration in order to make the registration process and protection of trade names more qualified in Turkish law: 1. Once the principles and exemptions regarding signs and words that are prohibited or available with authorization should be legislated in TCC number of 6102. Thereafter, Administrative regulation should specify this issue by taking into consideration the principles and exemptions in TCC because there are a number of trade names in practise which use signs and words having natural, cultural or religious values. The commercialization of these words or their use in trade names may cause floccinaucinihilipilification of their worth. Therefore, the words and signs that express national, cultural or religious value need to be determined by regulation and their use in trade names should be prohibited. 2. The usable words only with authorization in trade names should be more detailed. Otherwise, the uncertainties in the current regulations should be clarified. To illustrate, it is unclear whether the translated versions of the words specified in TCC art. 46/3 are exempted from authorization or not. Another example is that the Trade Name Regulation (Official Gazette 14.02.2014, S. 28913.) art. 4/4 exempts some merchants from taking authorization, who should use the words subject to authorization because his/his shareholder name is supposed to be used. However, associations of ship owners are not stated in this exemption while the shareholder’s name is required in the trade name of association of ship owners. 3. Art. 4/6 of the Trade Name Regulation states that country names could be used in trade names on condition of the related country’s permission. Likewise, the names of geographical places are freely usable. We supposed that these statements be legislated in TCC or TCC state that this issue is regulated by secondary administrative acts. Besides, when country names are also used as a product name, a phrase or a geographical place name, it is needed to clarify under such circumstance that the permission of that country is required. 4. The practice as to registrar’s making changes on registered trade names should be regulated. Similarly, if court decisions regarding changing a trade name may not be applicable because of the character of MERSIS (Central Registration System), the application process of the court decision should be regulated. 5. The qualification for identity and similarity assessment between registered names and trade name application are far from providing adequate protection for trade names. Hence, art. 5 of the Trade Names Regulation which differentiates the evaluation for identity and similarity should be revised by taking into consideration the principles of TCC. The trade name query system in MERSİS and TTSG (Turkey Commercial Registry Gazette) should have a qualification to show registered trade names which are too similar. By the time a system automatically assesses similarity and identity rate is arranged, it is necessary to envisage a detailed regulation regarding similarity assessment in order to ensure uniformity and legal certainty. In this regard, considering the regulation in England may be useful. In addition, to provide qualified protection for registered trade names, two issues shall be regulated. Firstly, the right owners of registered trade names should have a right to object to an application of registration. Secondly, the registrar should have an authorization to make a change to trade names. In this regard, registrars should have a “too similarity assessment” authority and any similarity objection should be evaluated by a conflict resolution centre. 6. The provision in art. 6/6 of SMK (Industrial Property Act) number of 6769 should be accepted for trade names by considering the registration procedure of trade names. In this regard, right owners on other commercial names may object to the registration of trade names to the same conflict resolution centre that the registered trade name owners object as well. 7. Competent authorities for trade names and TÜRKPATENT do not cooperate in the evaluation of registry application as to whether the application violates registered trademarks, trade names and business names or vice versa. Additionally, there is no registry for business names. It could be useful to improve cooperation among competent registration authorities of trade names and intellectual property rights.
