In recent years, the rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies has sparked significant debates in various branches of law, including criminal law. Particularly, the capacity of autonomous systems to make decisions independently of human intervention necessitates a reassessment of fundamental concepts such as fault, intent, and volition, which constitute the cornerstone of classical criminal liability. This article examines the issue of criminal liability concerning AI systems, discusses current doctrinal approaches, and evaluates potential solutions.

The Legal Status of Artificial Intelligence Systems

In order to discuss the criminal liability of AI systems, it is first necessary to determine their legal status. Under Turkish law, as well as in comparative law, AI systems have not been recognized as independent legal subjects. Accordingly, AI continues to be classified as a “thing” or an “auxiliary tool,” and its acts are attributed directly to the developer, user, or owner of the system.

However, with the development of “strong AI” or Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), the increasingly autonomous and unpredictable behaviors of these systems have raised concerns that existing liability frameworks may become insufficient.

Criminal Law Perspective on Liability

1. The Requirement of Fault and Volition

One of the fundamental principles of the Turkish Penal Code (TPC) is that criminal liability necessitates the presence of fault, namely an act performed with volition (TPC Articles 21-23). AI systems, however, lack legal volition and consciousness. Therefore, recognizing AI as a direct criminal actor is not possible under current legal structures.

2. Assessment Within the Scope of Instrument Liability

If an AI system is used merely as an instrument in committing an act, traditional rules regarding liability through tools and instruments will apply. Similar to the use of a weapon or a motor vehicle, when AI is utilized as a means to commit an act, the responsibility falls upon the human actor who is culpable.

Thus, harmful actions committed through AI are evaluated based on the fault of the programmer, operator, or party responsible for the system’s supervision.

3. Indirect Perpetration and Liability by Omission

In highly automated systems where there is no direct human actor at the time of the act, liability may arise under the framework of “offenses committed by omission.” According to TPC Articles 88 and following, individuals who breach their duty of care may be held criminally responsible for outcomes resulting from their negligent conduct.

For instance, if an autonomous vehicle causes a fatal accident due to a faulty software update, the software engineer or system owner may be held liable for “negligent homicide” (TPC Article 85) based on the breach of their duty of care.

International Approaches

In 2020, the European Commission, through its “Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI,” initiated discussions on the potential direct liability of AI systems within legal frameworks. Additionally, in 2021, the European Parliament debated the notion of “electronic personality” for highly autonomous AI systems, although no binding regulations have yet been established.

In U.S. law, damages caused by AI are typically addressed through the mechanisms of “product liability,” and there is no substantial discourse on the direct criminal liability of AI systems within the American legal system.

Evaluation and Conclusion

Recognizing AI systems as direct perpetrators under criminal law is incompatible with current legal structures and fundamental principles. However, the increasing unpredictability of these systems necessitates the reinforcement of indirect liability mechanisms and the development of new legal solutions.

In this context, the following proposals may be considered:

• Legislative Regulation: Enact clear statutory regulations that define duties of care concerning the development and use of AI and specify criminal consequences for breaches.
• Supervisory Mechanisms: Establish independent supervisory authorities to oversee the design, development, and deployment stages of AI systems.
• Insurance Mechanisms: Create systems such as Mandatory AI Insurance to ensure compensation for damages caused by AI.

Ultimately, the incompatibility between the classical structure of criminal law, which relies on human volition, and the autonomous operation of AI systems will provoke deeper discussions and demands for reform in the near future.

The post Criminal Liability of Artificial Intelligence Systems: A Contemporary Analysis first appeared on YAZICI + Partners Avukatlık Bürosu.

On 18 March 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered its judgment in Farhad Mehdiyev v. Azerbaijan (Application no. 36057/18), finding a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Court ruled that the Azerbaijani Bar Association’s decision to terminate the applicant’s right to practise law was not “in accordance with the law.”

Facts and Procedural History

The applicant, Farhad Mehdiyev, was admitted to the Azerbaijani Bar Association (ABA) in 2009 and became a licensed attorney. In 2012, he voluntarily withdrew from the Bar to focus on his academic and scientific work. However, in 2016, he was readmitted to the ABA and took the professional oath. Merely a few days later, the ABA revoked his membership, citing unpaid membership fees from the period between 2009 and 2012.

Mr. Mehdiyev challenged this decision before the domestic courts, alleging it was unlawful, but his claims were dismissed at all levels of the Azerbaijani judiciary. He subsequently lodged an application with the ECtHR.

Legal Assessment

1. Applicability of Article 8 ECHR

The Court first ruled that Article 8 was applicable. The termination of the applicant’s ability to practise as a lawyer had a direct impact on his professional life, personal development, and social relations. Referring to its prior case law, particularly Namazov v. Azerbaijan and Bagirov v. Azerbaijan, the Court reiterated that disbarment interferes with the core aspects of private life.

2. The “In Accordance with the Law” Requirement

The ECtHR found that the interference was not “in accordance with the law.” According to Article 23 of the Azerbaijani Law on Advocates, disbarment for failure to pay membership fees can only be executed through a court decision. However, the ABA revoked the applicant’s membership unilaterally, without seeking judicial approval. The domestic courts also overlooked this safeguard in their review.

Thus, the interference lacked a legal basis under national law and failed to meet the “foreseeability” and “legal certainty” standards required by the Convention.

3. Legitimate Aim and Necessity in a Democratic Society

Since the interference did not satisfy the “lawfulness” criterion, the Court did not proceed to assess whether the measure pursued a legitimate aim or was necessary in a democratic society.

Outcome and Just Satisfaction

The Court found a violation of Article 8 and awarded the applicant €4,500 in non-pecuniary damages and €1,500 in costs and expenses. The Court did not prescribe any specific individual measures, such as reinstatement to the Bar, leaving this to the discretion of Azerbaijani authorities under Article 46 of the Convention.

Analysis

This judgment underscores the importance of procedural safeguards and legal certainty in disciplinary proceedings against legal professionals. The Court’s decision signals that even autonomous professional bodies such as bar associations must comply with national and international legal standards when imposing sanctions as severe as disbarment.

The case also reflects ongoing concerns regarding the independence of the legal profession in Azerbaijan and reaffirms the critical role of Article 8 in protecting professional reputations and livelihoods.

Conclusion

The Farhad Mehdiyev v. Azerbaijan ruling is a significant contribution to the Court’s jurisprudence on the intersection of private life and professional discipline. It reinforces the principle that disbarment proceedings must be conducted under strict legal procedures and with sufficient judicial oversight to prevent arbitrary interference with the right to practise law.

The post European Court of Human Rights Farhad Mehdiyev v. Azerbaijan first appeared on YAZICI + Partners Avukatlık Bürosu.

Foundation universities are non-profit higher education institutions established by foundations with private legal personality. The establishment of foundation universities in Turkey is regulated by the 1982 Constitution, Law No. 2547 on Higher Education and related legislation. Foundation universities provide public service education and, unlike public universities, they receive their financial resources from foundation endowments and student fees. In this article, the process of establishing a foundation university will be discussed in detail in terms of its legal, financial and academic aspects.

2. Legal Basis of Foundation Universities

Foundation universities can be established within the framework of Article 130 of the 1982 Constitution and Articles 12 and 56 of the Higher Education Law No. 2547. The status of foundation universities in the field of higher education is considered to be special since they do not have public legal personality, but the education and training services they provide are of public nature. Law No. 5580 on Private Education Institutions and related regulations also contain provisions on the functioning of foundation universities.

3. Foundation University Establishment Process

Legal entities wishing to establish a foundation university must complete the following legal and administrative processes:

• Foundation Establishment and Preparation of the Articles of Association

In order to establish a foundation university, a foundation must first be established. The foundation gains legal personality by being registered with the court in accordance with the Turkish Civil Code. The foundation’s articles of association must specify in detail the foundation’s purpose, field of activity, higher education services, financial resources and management structure. The foundation’s articles of association should also include the structure of the board of trustees, the minimum assets of the foundation, and the financial infrastructure necessary for the continuation of education and training activities.

• Application to the Council of Higher Education (YÖK)

After the foundation is registered, the foundation must submit a university establishment file to YÖK. The dossier should include academic structure, financial resources, board of trustees, education programs, academic staff, physical infrastructure, laboratories, libraries and social facilities. In addition, the academic planning of the university’s departments should be detailed and the compliance of the education programs with the Bologna Process should be evaluated.

• Review and Evaluation by YÖK

The CoHE examines the application in terms of academic, financial and legal aspects and, if deemed appropriate, forwards the file to the Ministry of National Education. YÖK’s evaluation process takes into account criteria such as whether the proposed university is capable of sustaining the quality of education, whether it has sufficient academic staff and the adequacy of its physical infrastructure. In addition, YÖK requires the foundation university to have a certain initial capital and to allocate the necessary resources for student scholarships.

• Ministerial Approval and Presidential Decree

In line with the positive opinion of the Ministry of National Education, the establishment of a foundation university is officially completed by the President’s decision and published in the Official Gazette. With the decision of the President of the Republic, the university is officially granted permission to establish and then the foundation university is obliged to complete its academic and administrative structuring before starting to accept students.

4. Obligations of Foundation Universities

After the establishment process is completed, foundation universities are subject to the following obligations:

• To provide education in accordance with the quality standards set by YÖK,
• Providing scholarships to students
• Ensure financial transparency and be subject to audit processes,
• Not to distribute profit in order to provide services for the public good,
• To ensure the adequacy of the academic staff and to employ faculty members in accordance with the determined criteria,
• To adhere to the budget planning determined by the university’s board of trustees and to comply with the ethical rules in the field of higher education.

5. Audit of Foundation Universities and Compliance with Legislation

Foundation universities are under constant supervision by YÖK. They are required to undergo accreditation processes to ensure the quality of their education and training activities. Foundation universities are also required to submit annual financial reports to the CoHE. The Higher Education Supervisory Board regularly examines whether the financial, academic and administrative structures of foundation universities comply with the legislation.

6. Conclusion

Establishing a foundation university is a comprehensive process that requires certain legal, financial and administrative steps. It is of great importance that individuals or institutions considering establishing a foundation university to contribute to higher education in Turkey fully comply with the legislation. Operating under the supervision of YÖK, foundation universities make significant contributions to the development of higher education. It is of great importance for foundation universities to have a sustainable academic structure in order to maintain the quality of education and to ensure that students receive a qualified education.

The post first appeared on YAZICI + Partners Avukatlık Bürosu.

As a word, release has different meanings such as “exoneration, exoneration, release from debt, consolidation, declaration that there is no more debt and credit”. In legal terminology, release is generally used to mean “the complete or partial relinquishment of a right by the creditor” or “the release of bodies from liability and waiver of possible compensation claims” in terms of civil and commercial law. In this respect, release is a means of termination of debt that is frequently used in legal entities.

The bodies performing transactions on behalf of a legal entity are obliged to account for their activities to the legal entity at the end of the accounting period. Especially in joint stock companies, cooperatives and other legal entities, the management bodies may be released from legal and financial liability by being discharged by the general assembly at the end of the relevant period.

Release Regulation in the Turkish Code of Obligations (TCO)

Under the Turkish Code of Obligations (TCO), release is regulated as one of the special cases that provide for the termination of the obligation without performance. According to the TCO, a release is a legal transaction in which the creditor releases the debtor from his/her debt by renouncing his/her right to receive.

This situation is realized through a “release agreement” that eliminates the debt. A release agreement is a contract between the creditor and the debtor that allows the creditor to waive the creditor’s right without fulfilling the debtor’s performance. The main point here is that the creditor partially or completely waives a receivable in the assets of the debtor and thus terminates the debtor’s debt obligation.

A release agreement is a dispositive transaction between the parties aiming to terminate a debt, the existence of which is beyond doubt, in whole or in part. However, in order for the release agreement to be valid, the parties must enter into this agreement with their free will.

Release in Joint Stock Companies

In joint stock companies, discharge means the approval by the general assembly of the acts and activities of the management bodies at the end of a certain accounting period. The general assembly approves the activities of the members of the board of directors and executives for the relevant period and releases them from legal liability for these activities.

With the release resolution, the company will not be able to assert any claims against the discharged persons for their activities and will not be able to hold them liable. This situation is of great importance for the members of the board of directors, because if they are not discharged, the partnership may file a liability lawsuit against them.

Release decision in joint stock companies;

Release in the material sense: It refers to the removal of the liability of the members of the board of directors.
Release in the formal sense: It means the acceptance that the activities carried out by the board of directors are in compliance with the law and in line with the interests of the partnership.

In this context, the release of liability in joint stock companies constitutes a negative acknowledgment of debt and indicates that the company accepts the transactions carried out by the management bodies in the past period as legally valid. The release decision of the general assembly is a unilateral and executive decision and has direct consequences.

Scope and Limits of the Release Procedure

The release is an internal transaction and binds the shareholders and, in certain circumstances, the company’s shareholders. However, the release does not have a direct effect on third parties outside the company, especially creditors. In other words, the release decision of the joint stock company does not eliminate the right of the company’s creditors to file a lawsuit in case of damages. Creditors may continue to sue for compensation of their damages. On the other hand, the company’s right to file a liability lawsuit on its own behalf is eliminated with the release decision.

Release of the Foundation’s Governing Bodies and Legal Status

The Turkish Civil Code (TCC) stipulates that the governing bodies of a foundation are a mandatory element for the foundation to acquire legal personality (Art. 109 TCC). However, there is no provision in the TCC regarding the discharge of foundation management bodies. In this regard, there is a clear gap in the law.

Article 111 of the TCC contains the following provision regarding the audit of foundations

“The General Directorate of Foundations and its supreme organizations shall supervise whether the foundations fulfill the provisions of the foundation deed, whether they manage the foundation properties in accordance with the purpose, and whether they spend the foundation revenues in accordance with the purpose. The supervision of foundations by their higher organizations is subject to the provisions of special laws.”

This provision refers to the administrative supervision of foundations and does not contain a direct regulation on release. Therefore, it is clear that a provision on the release of foundation management bodies is missing and there is a legal gap. If the foundation’s governing bodies act negligently or maliciously, the risk of damage to the foundation increases due to the lack of a release mechanism.

For this reason, it can be argued that a legal regulation should be introduced to require the release of foundation management bodies by the general assembly, as in the case of companies. Thus, the management of foundations can be made more transparent and legal uncertainties can be eliminated.

Conclusion

Release is an important concept in our legal system in terms of the termination of the debt relationship or the release of the management bodies from liability. In the Turkish Code of Obligations, release is regulated as the waiver of the creditor from claiming its receivables from the debtor. In joint stock companies, release of liability means the removal of the liability of the members of the board of directors for the activities of a certain accounting period. However, there is no provision in the Turkish Civil Code regarding the release of foundation management bodies. This situation creates a legal gap and constitutes a deficiency in terms of transparent management of foundations. Therefore, it can be argued that a clear regulation should be introduced regarding the release of foundation management bodies.

In conclusion, the release is an important legal mechanism both in terms of debt relations and the liability of the management bodies of legal entities. As in the case of joint stock companies and other commercial legal entities, it is of great importance to regulate the release of executives within the framework of the law in order to ensure a healthy and transparent management of foundations.

The post The Concept and Legal Nature of Release first appeared on YAZICI + Partners Avukatlık Bürosu.

Under Turkish law, according to Article 439 of the CCP and Article 15 of the ICC, the only remedy available against arbitral awards is an action for annulment. The annulment action allows for the review of arbitral awards on procedural or substantive grounds, but the courts do not evaluate the merits of the dispute. The annulment action must be filed within one month following the notification of the award.

Under the CPL, annulment actions filed against domestic arbitration awards are primarily heard by the regional courts of justice. The grounds for annulment are as follows: the incompetence of one of the parties or the invalidity of the arbitration agreement, irregularities in the selection of the arbitrator and the proceedings, failure to render the award within the prescribed period, the arbitral tribunal exceeding its authority, violation of the equality of the parties and the right to be heard, and violation of public order.

Although the grounds for annulment under the IAA are largely similar, there are some differences. According to the IAA, the filing of an annulment action automatically suspends the enforcement of the arbitral award. Moreover, the grounds for annulment are divided into those that may be raised by the parties and those that will be taken into consideration by the court ex officio.

As a result of the annulment proceedings, the court may set aside the award or dismiss the case. In the event of annulment, the dispute may be retried and this process may be conducted in court or through arbitration.

As a result, the only legal remedy available against arbitral awards, whether in domestic arbitration or international arbitration, is annulment proceedings. While the CCP and the IAA regulate annulment proceedings in a similar manner, there are some differences due to the nature of international arbitration.

The post Annulment of Foreign and National Arbitral Awards first appeared on YAZICI + Partners Avukatlık Bürosu.

The post Regulation on Private Hospitals! first appeared on YAZICI + Partners Avukatlık Bürosu.

According to the new regulation, the minimum equity amounts have been updated as follows

• Payment institutions intermediating bill payments:

While the previous minimum equity amount was TRY 10 million, this amount has been increased to TRY 15 million with the new regulation.

• Other payment institutions:

The minimum shareholders’ equity amount, which was previously TL 20 million, has been updated to TL 30 million.

• Electronic money institutions:

The minimum shareholders’ equity amount, which was previously TL 55 million, has been increased to TL 80 million with the new regulation.

These updates aim to increase the financial soundness of payment and electronic money institutions and reinforce confidence in the sector. These institutions are required to comply with the new minimum equity requirements by June 30, 2025.

What is Equity?

Equity is defined in Article 32 of the Regulation on Payment Services and Electronic Money Issuance and Payment Service Providers. Pursuant to the relevant article of the Regulation, shareholders’ equity is the amount of capital that financial institutions are required to hold, which is calculated by deducting the balance sheet items specified in this paragraph from the total of the balance sheet items specified in the second paragraph.

What is the Minimum Equity Obligation?

It is the minimum amount of capital that payment and electronic money institutions are required to hold according to the service they provide in accordance with the Communiqué. Minimum equity requirements are regulated in Article 33 of the Regulation on Payment Services and Electronic Money Issuance and Payment Service Providers. This amount is updated every year in January by publishing a communiqué. Equity calculations of payment and electronic money institutions are made in June and December each year.
You can access the relevant communiqué here.

The post Communiqué on Redetermination of Minimum Equity Amounts of Payment and Electronic Money Institutions has been Published! first appeared on YAZICI + Partners Avukatlık Bürosu.

One of the important dispute resolution mechanisms developed by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”) for the effective protection of trademark rights on the Internet is the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”).

The UDRP sets out the legal framework for the resolution of disputes between a domain name registrant and a third party regarding the registration and use of internet domain names in bad faith. The UDRP provides for a dispute resolution procedure and a system of uniform rules for the enforcement of decisions rendered in the dispute resolution procedure. This system, also referred to as ICANN arbitration, is not exactly arbitration, but it is arbitration-like. Arbitration is an agreement between the parties to have an existing or potential dispute between them resolved by arbitrators and is a private judicial activity that is enforceable just like court judgments.

The ICANN resolution procedure, on the other hand, has its own characteristics and is different from classical arbitration. In classical arbitration, as the definition suggests, an agreement between the parties is required for the dispute to be resolved by arbitrators. In contrast, the jurisdiction of the ICANN resolution procedure is not based on an oral or written agreement of the parties to the dispute, but on the domain name allocation agreement concluded between the service provider and the domain name owner. Therefore, for the trademark owner on the other side of the dispute, the ICANN resolution procedure may be invoked even in the absence of an agreement.

The ICANN dispute resolution procedure is much faster and cheaper than classical arbitration. In the UDRP dispute resolution procedure, there is no remedy/appeal against the arbitral tribunal’s decision within the ICANN system, although the party against whom the transfer or deletion of the domain name has been ordered is granted certain remedies. As explained in detail below, the jurisdiction of the state courts over the decisions of the arbitral tribunal remains in place. Therefore, the most important difference in the ICANN remedy procedure is that there is no court remedy before or after the arbitration. The UDRP rules, in the article entitled “Availability of Court Proceedings”:

“… We will then implement the decision unless we have received from you during that ten (10) business day period official documentation (such as a copy of a complaint, file-stamped by the clerk of the court) that you have commenced a lawsuit against the complainant in a jurisdiction to which the complainant has submitted under Paragraph 3(b)(xiii) of the Rules of Procedure. (In general, that jurisdiction is either the location of our principal office or of your address as shown in our Whois database.”

It is stated that the arbitral awards will not be enforced for a period of ten business days, and that the arbitral award will not be enforced if the party against whom the award is rendered submits a lawsuit before the competent court during this period. Here, the place of application as the competent court is stated as the location of the head office or the address of the domain name owner registered in the Whois database. Notifying the arbitration center of the lawsuit filed in the competent court within ten business days from the notification of the arbitral award will be sufficient to prevent the enforcement of the arbitral award. Here, ten working days is important in terms of preventing the enforcement of the arbitral award. A lawsuit may be filed after the expiry of the ten business days, but this lawsuit will not stay the enforcement of the arbitral award.

For more information, please contact us.

The post ICANN – UDRP Organizations first appeared on YAZICI + Partners Avukatlık Bürosu.

“A trademark may consist of any kind of signs, including words, including personal names, figures, colors, colors, letters, numbers, sounds and the form of the goods or their packaging, provided that they enable the goods or services of one undertaking to be distinguished from the goods or services of another undertaking and that they can be displayed in the register in such a way that the subject matter of the protection granted to the trademark owner can be clearly and precisely understood.”

The concept of trademark is indirectly regulated.

2.Basic Elements of a Trademark
As it is understood from the article of the Law, there are three basic elements of a trademark and the first of these elements is the existence of a sign. As stated in Article 4 of the IPL, a trademark may consist of all kinds of signs such as words, shapes, letters, sounds.

Another element of a trademark is the distinctive character of the sign used. What is meant by distinctiveness is that a sign must primarily distinguish the goods or services of one undertaking from the goods or services of another undertaking.

Article 4 of the IPL, which regulates the signs that may be trademarks, also specifies the element of being registrable in the registry. As is known, trademark protection is obtained through registration. As it is clearly stated that signs such as sounds and odors can also be trademarks, it is accepted that signs can be perceived not only by the eye but also by other sensory organs. As a result of this, the signs that may be trademarks will be displayed in the registry in line with the perception of the relevant sense organs.

3.Invalidity of Trademark – Reasons for Absolute Refusal
In trademark law, invalidity refers to the cancellation and invalidation of a registered trademark because it does not have the necessary conditions. Article 25 of the IPL regulates the invalidity of the trademark:

“In the event that one of the conditions listed in Article 5 or Article 6 is present, the court shall decide on the invalidity of the trademark”

A reference is also made to the absolute grounds for refusal regulated in Article 5 of the same Law. Absolute grounds for refusal are related to public order and are taken into consideration ex officio by the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (TPMK) and the courts. The absolute grounds for refusal listed as grounds for invalidity in Article 5 of the IPL are as follows:

• Signs that do not qualify as trademarks
  Signs that are not distinctive in any way
  Signs containing the characteristics of the goods or services
  Signs identical or indistinguishably similar to a registered trademark or a trademark for which an application for registration has been filed
  Signs used by everyone in the field of commerce or used to distinguish those belonging to a particular profession, art or trade group
  Signs that contain a shape or other feature related to the original structure, technical necessity of the goods
  Signs that mislead the public about the nature, quality or geographical origin of the goods or services
  Signs to be rejected according to Article 6 of the Paris Convention, 2nd repetition
  Signs which are outside the scope of Article 6 of the 2nd Repeated Article 2 of the Paris Convention and which have certain characteristics
  Signs containing religious values or symbols
  Signs contrary to public order or public morality
  Signs consisting of a registered geographical indication or containing a registered geographical indication

4.Exceptions to Invalidity Caused by Absolute Reasons for Refusal
Exceptions to the absolute grounds for refusal are regulated in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 5 of the IPL. Article 5/2 of the IPL states:

“If a trademark has been used before the application date and has acquired distinctive character as a result of this use in terms of the goods or services subject to the application, the registration of this trademark cannot be refused according to subparagraphs (b), (c) and (d) of the first paragraph.”

As such, it is allowed to register trademarks that have gained distinctiveness as a result of use. However, what is meant by the use of the trademark here is not an ordinary use, but an intensive use that will give the trademark distinctiveness.

Another exception to the absolute bar to registration is provided in Article 5/3 of the IPL:

“A trademark application may not be refused pursuant to subparagraph (ç) of the first paragraph if a notarized document showing that the previous trademark owner expressly consents to the registration of the application is submitted to the Office. The procedures and principles regarding the consent shall be determined by regulation.”

It is stipulated as follows. Article 5/1-ç of the IPL stipulates that trademarks that are identical or indistinguishably similar to a trademark that has been registered or for which a registration application has been made in the previous date in relation to the same or the same type of goods or services cannot be registered. However, Article 5/3 of the IPL stipulates that a trademark may be registered in the name of one person while it is registered in the name of another person.

The validity conditions of the aforementioned consent form are specified in Article 10 of the IPR Regulation. The relevant article states that the consent must be issued in the form of a signed form accepted as valid by the Office and must be approved by a notary public.

5.Invalidity of Trademark – Relative Reasons for Refusal
Relative grounds for refusal, unlike absolute grounds for refusal, are not related to public order, but are based on the alleged existence of superior rights of third parties. Therefore, relative grounds for refusal cannot be taken into consideration ex officio by the IPC. The relative grounds for refusal specified in Article 6 of the IPL are as follows:

• The trademark applied for registration is identical or similar to a trademark that has already been registered or for which an application for registration has already been made, and these trademarks cover the same or similar goods or services and are likely to be confused by the public
  Filing a trademark application by the trademark owner’s commercial agent or representative without authorization and without a justifiable reason
  Objection by the right holder of an unregistered or commercially used sign
  Objection by the right holder of an unregistered or commercially used sign
  The owner of a well-known trademark may oppose an identical or similar trademark application if certain conditions are met
  The trademark covers another person’s name, trade name, photograph, copyright or any other intellectual property right
  Requesting the registration of the same or similar common or guarantee trademark that has not been renewed within a certain period of time
  Requesting the registration of the same or similar registered trademark that has not been renewed for a certain period of time
  Filing a trademark application in bad faith

6.Loss of Rights through Silence
Article 25(6) of the IPL states:

“If the trademark proprietor knows or should have known that a later trademark is being used, but has remained silent for five consecutive years, he may not invalidate his trademark, unless the registration of the later trademark is in bad faith.”

As stipulated in this provision, if the owner of the earlier trademark knows or should have known about the later use, but has remained silent for five years without interruption, it will be deemed to have consented to the later use to the point of a right.

For more information, please contact us.

The post Concept of Trademark and Invalidity of Trademark first appeared on YAZICI + Partners Avukatlık Bürosu.

In the precedent decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation No. 2007/34191 E. 2009/554 K:

“On 21.07.2004 at around 05:00, it was determined that the plaintiff was not present at the duty station. The plaintiff accepted that he was not present at the duty station in his defense petition dated 22.07.2004. The negligence of the plaintiff, who performs security duty, jeopardizing the security of the workplace is a justified reason for termination. This action of the plaintiff constitutes a violation of Article 25/2-h of the Law No. 4857. The termination made by the employer is justified and the acceptance of the plaintiff’s requests for severance and notice pay instead of rejection was erroneous and required a reversal.”

In this way, the security guard’s leaving the duty station was evaluated as a just cause for termination.

Similarly, in the decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation No. 2015/25507 E. 2018/21371 K:

“Sleeping or leaving the duty station of the guard providing security services (Court of Cassation 9th HD. 4.11.2008 dated 2007/30651 E, 2008/30368 K.), smoking in the place where flammable and explosive materials are located, even though it is prohibited (Court of Cassation 9th HD. 21.12.2009 dated 2009/12861 E, 2009/36369 K.), neglecting the duty of the worker assigned to control a device that can work with pressure or high temperature can be given as examples of behaviors that endanger the safety of the work.

In the concrete dispute, in the face of the determination that the employee working as a security guard slept on duty, since it is understood that the plaintiff’s action constitutes a violation of Article 25/II-(ı) of the Labor Law No. 4857 and therefore the termination is based on just cause, the acceptance of the request for severance pay and notice pay should be rejected.”

As such, the private security officer’s sleeping and leaving the duty station are shown as examples of behaviors that endanger the safety of the work and are considered as just cause for termination.

The post Private Security Officer’s Leaving the Place of Duty and the Employer’s Right to Terminate for Just Cause first appeared on YAZICI + Partners Avukatlık Bürosu.