Supreme Court 11. law office

Base Number: 2015/12923

Decision Number: 2017/2724

“text of jurisprudence”


In the case between the parties, Dec.1. The Supreme Court’s examination of the decision No. 2010/170-2015/143 dated 07/07/2015 and issued by the Law Court of Intellectual and Industrial Rights was requested by the plaintiff’s deputy and it was understood that the appeal petition was granted within the period, but the amount in question was below TL 21,242, so the provisional 3/2 of the Law No. 6100. article 438, as amended by Law No. 3156, which should be applied in accordance with the article. after the decision was made to conduct the examination on the file by rejecting the request for a hearing in accordance with the article, the report organized by the Examining Judge for the case file was listened to and the petition, orders, minutes of the hearing and all documents in the file were read and examined, and then the work was discussed and considered:
The acting plaintiff said that his client acted as a deputy in cases against holdings such as…,…, obtained a lot of hard-to-reach information by requesting information and documents from official institutions about more than 50 companies, following criminal cases, studying criminal case files in foreign countries, completing his master’s degree in international corporate law, and his client, who has a doctorate in the same subject, sorted out hundreds of folders and summarized this information, footnotes, including preparing legal briefs, which are of scientific value for every company that operates in this manner, with any information we obtain in this way their updates petition, thus the result of detailed study in the field of Company Law and Capital Market Law and legal briefs appeared in excess of 30 pages, and the defendant’s petition by copying them verbatim almost the client used in your own lawsuit, references, quotations, and even the village of the same parts that are specified by the petition is in the nature of the work, my client without the permission and knowledge by the defendant of the violation of the rights arising from the use fsek plagiarism plagiarism is not complete and the part of the defendant, citing works by using the client provided an unfair advantage, and the new injunction obtained ihtiyadi rape prevention Rape Elimination sonrasinde with the cessation of the present without prejudice to the rights and all the results on the surplus, FSEK 68/1 m.5,190.00 TL financial compensation,which is 3 times TL 1,730. 00 in accordance with the Bar Association Fee Tariff,3 TL moral compensation per client in accordance with FSEK 70/2, 70/3 m. In accordance with each case and response petition,as well as for unauthorized use of the petition separately. as a result, he demanded and sued for the payment of all the defendant’s profits and the entire attorney’s fee to his client and the announcement of the verdict.
The defendant’s deputy said that the petition, as the plaintiff claims, will not be considered a work, even if it is considered a work, the plaintiff does not have a work, the relevant cases are well-known cases, the Solidarity Association and Av are established in. …where he is the head of, and the law firm is conducting these cases, the plaintiff and his client are Av. … met and there was an offer to them for the execution of these cases in Turkey, the plaintiff is not satisfied with the services provided to the association and its members stay on … that was given to the attorney-client, and the documentation supplied by the association and the petition was arguing that his client did not have any action that constitutes rape or unfairly, has asked for a dismissal.
The court’s claim, defense, evidence, expert reports, and all file according to the scope, the owners of very exceptional as well as personal interpretation and research of the petition as protected in the nature of the work may be used for this information to be defended by a lawyer for the first time the public domain does not enter into an intellectual should demonstrate creativity, the inclusion of the petition and artistic works and scientific works in the category of low level expression could be insufficient in quality of information will include, ordinary, special and not to be required, provided that there is a certain level of creativity, of the petition of the plaintiff in a particular order systematically the relevant provisions, judicial decisions and doctrine because of the importance of the subject, often prepared with reference to the report where the CMB, where the petition is created in a certain fiction this fiction will lead to the conclusion that victimization and demand by the client within the framework of the events described in the petition related to the part of the evidence to prove these facts with the facts that he was referring, from this perspective, the obligation is fulfilled concretization HMK projected in each petition was being prepared during the period, while the burden of the petition is not in force in the concretization HMK article that should be fulfilled when the application was accepted, concretization, which are elements that must be included in the petition along with the burden of the legal grounds, so was not included in the petition, the party is the plaintiff, although there are aspects that should be included in the petition in accordance with the law, originality, and come to the forefront in terms of reflecting the characteristics of the owner were found more items that may not doctrinal reference in the petition if it is used several times, where it is generally accepted law financial law, with the articles of the petition of reviews being added to with a brief statement given, as the case often used in practice where it is made in the text, therefore, as the work of the petition for adoption is required to be defended for the first time, go into the public domain, the idea of creativity and reveal the conditions did not have, since the original of the petition is required to be at a certain level do not perform the work that must be carrying if the trait does not enjoy nature, and is assessed as relating to unfair competition, if specified in the content of the petition, and the sameness of religions that are detected in the CMB and the supply of parts is a quote from the article of the law of the information society in the pool is not present, the members of the Association of the aforementioned Association due to his inability to deal with the plaintiff by the defendant on the grounds that he was appointed as the trustee of reported, it was decided to dismiss the case.
The decision was appealed by the acting plaintiff.
According to the information and documents contained in the case file, there are no procedural and illegal aspects in discussing and evaluating the evidence based on the justification of the court decision, not all appeals of the plaintiff’s deputy are in place.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons described above, it was unanimously decided on 09.05.2017 to APPROVE the decision in accordance with the procedure and the law by rejecting all appeals of the plaintiff’s deputy, to withdraw the balance of TL 3.70 from the appellant, written below, on 09.05.2017.

Bir cevap yazın

E-posta hesabınız yayımlanmayacak. Gerekli alanlar * ile işaretlenmişlerdir