Criminal Actions
“CHANEL, FENDI, ETIENNE, AIGNER, MOSCHINO” Trademark
Chanel, Chanel S.A., Fendi Paolo, Etienne Aigner AG, Moon Shadow vs. Mehmet Yılmaz Hacıahmetoğlu
3rd Penal Court of Istanbul, Decision No. 1998/1637 – 2000/484 (April 21, 2000)
In the action (*) -reported in IAR (Edition) of 1999- against shop keepers and retailers dealing with and selling infringing goods carrying the trademarks “CHANEL, FENDI, ETIENNE, AIGNER, MOSCHINO” as of the complaints filed by the plaintiffs to the Public Prosecutor, the police raids affected upon his order resulted in the seizure of infringing goods in their premises upon which the Public Prosecutor instituted the criminal actions against each of them separately and the plaintiffs have joined such actions.
In its identically worded and motivated decisions the Criminal Court has ruled to:
· Confirm, on the basis of an experts’ opinion that the goods seized in the business premises of the infringes do infringe the registered trademarks of the plaintiffs.
· The definite seizure of the confiscated infringing goods found in the business premises of the infringers,
· Acquit, unexpectedly, the infringers on the grounds that because of the wanting quality of the material used and of the craftsmanship of the infringing goods, the buyers can easily and undoubtedly distinguish the originally branded bags over the infringing goods which for this very reason are not capable confusing the buyers in their choice.
In its decision, the court has acquitted the defendants and applied no penalties on them pursuant to the Trademarks Act No. 551.
Upon the plaintiff’s appeal, in its decision (**) the 7th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court overturned the initial (*) decision and ruled that the defendant is to be condemned on grounds of selling knowingly infringing goods according to the Trademarks Act No. 551 which was in force at the time when the offense was committed. The Supreme court further decided to the confiscation of the goods according to the Turkish Criminal Act no. 36 instead of Trademarks Act No. 551. The 3rd Penal Court of Istanbul upheld the decision of the Supreme Court and ruled to ban the defendant from exercising any trading activity together with the closure of the shop/store for a period of one year and to condemn him to 8 months of imprisonment which was then turned into pecuniary penalty.
(*) 1. CHANEL
2. CHANEL S.A.
vs. Mr. OSMAN MAZHAR KAHRAMAN
3rd Penal Court of Beyoğlu/Istanbul
Decision No. 1996/52 – 1997/1342 (December 9, 1997)
(**) 7th Criminal Chamber of Supreme Court
Decision No. 1999/6551 – 1999/8413 (July 13, 1999) (notified on October 22, 1999)
(***) 3rd Penal Court of Beyoğlu/Istanbul
Decision No. 1999/1662 – 2000/90 (January 31, 2000) (notified on February 17, 2000)
In the action (*) against shop keepers and retailers dealing with and selling infringing goods carrying the trademarks “CHANEL, FENDI, ETIENNE, AIGNER, MOSCHINO” as of the complaints filed by the plaintiffs to the Public Prosecutor, the police raids affected upon his order resulted in the seizure of infringing goods in their premises upon which the Public Prosecutor instituted the criminal actions against each of them separately and the plaintiffs have joined such actions.
In its identically motivated decisions(*) the Criminal Court has ruled to:
· Confirm, on the basis of an experts’ opinion that the goods seized in the business premises of the infringes do infringe the registered trademarks of the plaintiffs.
· Ban the exercise of professional activity together with closure of the professional activity for 1 year.
· The punishment of the defendants to 8 month of imprisonment, which was then turned into pecuniary fine.
· The definite seizure of the confiscated infringing goods found in the business premises of the infringers,
Upon the defendant’s appeal, in its decision (**) the 7th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court overturned the initial decision (*) on grounds of the jointly instituted action which should be instituted against each defendant independently and further on grounds of receipt by the court clerk of unsigned experts’ affidavit. The 3rd Penal Court of Istanbul (***) decided to uphold the decision of the Supreme Court and ruled the same judgment and penalties of its initial decision (*) separately against each defendant.
The Court has suspended and remitted to the future the serving of the penalties as on the basis of the behavior during the proceedings of the defendant it has been convinced that the defendant is not likely to commit a similar offence in the future.
(*)
CHANELCHANEL S.A.FENDİ PAOLO S. LLE. S.A.S. ETIENNE AIGNER AGMOON SHADOW S.p.A vs. DENHO AKNUH HAPPANİPOZANT SEFERFERİT KUTLUK. MEHMET NECDET TONGUÇARTİN KİLECİYILMAZ HACIAHMENTOĞLUTEMEL YAŞAR ÖZBENERGUN VURAL
3rd Penal Court of Istanbul
Decision No. 1995/1515 – 1997/105
(**) 7th Criminal Chamber of Supreme Court
Decision No. 1998/3943 – 1998/4697
(***) CHANEL vs. DENHO AK
CHANEL S.A.
FENDİ PAOLO S. LLE. S.A.S.
ETIENNE AIGNER AG.
MOON SHADOW S.p.A
3rd Court of Istanbul
Decision No. 1998/1632 – 1999/1279 (October 25, 1999)
In the action (*) against shop keepers and retailers dealing with and selling infringing goods carrying the trademarks “CHANEL, FENDI, ETIENNE, AIGNER, MOSCHINO” as of the complaints filed by the plaintiffs to the Public Prosecutor, the police raids effected upon his order resulted in the seizure of infringing goods in their premises upon which the Public Prosecutor instituted the criminal actions against each of them separately and the plaintiffs have joined such actions.
In its identically motivated decisions (*) the Criminal Court has ruled to:
· Confirm, on the basis of an experts’ opinion that the goods seized in the business premises of the infringes do infringe the registered trademarks of the plaintiffs.
· Ban the exercise of professional activity together with closure of the professional activity for 1 year.
· The punishment of the defendants to 8 month of imprisonment which was then turned to pecuniary fine.
· The definite seizure of the confiscated infringing goods found in the business premises of the infringers,
Upon the defendant’s appeal, in its decision (**) the 7th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court overturned the initial decision (*) on grounds of the jointly instituted action which should be instituted against each defendant independently and further on grounds of receipt by the court clerk of unsigned experts’ affidavit. The 3rd Penal Court of Istanbul (***) decided to uphold the decision of the Supreme Court and ruled the same judgment and penalties of its initial decision (*) separately against each defendant.
The Court has suspended and remitted to the future the serving of the penalties as on the basis of the behavior during the proceedings of the defendant it has been convinced that the defendant is not likely to commit a similar offence in the future.
(*) CHANEL vs. DENHO AK
CHANEL S.A. NUH HAPPANİ
FENDİ PAOLO S. LLE. S.A.S. POZANT SEFER
ETIENNE AIGNER AG FERİT KUTLUK.
MOON SHADOW S.p.A MEHMET NECDET TONGUÇ
ARTİN KİLECİ
YILMAZ HACIAHMENTOĞLU
TEMEL YAŞAR ÖZBEN
ERGUN VURAL
3rd Penal Court of Istanbul
Decision No. 1995/1515 – 1997/105
(**) 7th Criminal Chamber of Supreme Court
Decision No. 1998/3943 – 1998/4697
(***) CHANEL vs. ERGÜN VURAL
CHANEL S.A.
FENDİ PAOLO S. LLE. S.A.S.
ETIENNE AIGNER AG.
MOON SHADOW S.p.A
3rd Court of İstanbul
Decision No. 1998/1635 – 1999/852 (June 30, 1999)
In the action (*) against shop keepers and retailers dealing with and selling infringing goods carrying the trademarks “CHANEL, FENDI, ETIENNE, AIGNER, MOSCHINO” as of the complaints filed by the plaintiffs to the Public Prosecutor, the police raids affected upon his order resulted in the seizure of infringing goods in their premises upon which the Public Prosecutor instituted the criminal actions against each of them separately and the plaintiffs have joined such actions.
In its identically motivated decisions (*) the Criminal Court has ruled to:
· Confirm, on the basis of an experts’ opinion that the goods seized in the business premises of the infringes do infringe the registered trademarks of the plaintiffs.
· Ban the exercise of professional activity together with closure of the professional activity for 1 year.
· The punishment of the defendants to 8 month of imprisonment, which was then turned into pecuniary fine.
· The definite seizure of the confiscated infringing goods found in the business premises of the infringers,
Upon the defendant’s appeal, in its decision (**) the 7th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court overturned the initial decision (*) on grounds of the jointly instituted action which should be instituted against each defendant independently and further on grounds of receipt by the Court Clerk of unsigned experts’ affidavit. The 3rd Penal Court of Istanbul (***) decided to uphold the decision of the Supreme Court and ruled the same judgment and penalties of its initial decision (*) separately against each defendant.
The Court has suspended and remitted to the future the serving of the penalties as on the basis of the behavior during the proceedings of the defendant it has been convinced that the defendant is not likely to commit a similar offence in the future.
(*) CHANEL vs. DENHO AK
CHANEL S.A. NUH HAPPANİ
FENDİ PAOLO S. LLE. S.A.S. POZANT SEFER
ETIENNE AIGNER AG FERİT KUTLUK.
MOON SHADOW S.p.A MEHMET NECDET TONGUÇ
ARTİN KİLECİ
YILMAZ HACIAHMENTOĞLU
TEMEL YAŞAR ÖZBEN
ERGUN VURAL
3rd Penal Court of Istanbul
Decision No. 1995/1515 – 1997/105
(**) 7th Criminal Chamber of Supreme Court
Decision No. 1998/3943 – 1998/4697
(***) CHANEL vs. FERİT KUTLUK
CHANEL S.A.
FENDİ PAOLO S. LLE. S.A.S.
ETIENNE AIGNER AG.
MOON SHADOW S.p.A
3rd Court of Istanbul
Decision No. 1998/1634 – 1999/1280 (October 25, 1999)
In the action (*) against shop keepers and retailers dealing with and selling infringing goods carrying the trademarks “CHANEL, FENDI, ETIENNE, AIGNER, MOSCHINO” as of the complaints filed by the plaintiffs to the Public Prosecutor, the police raids affected upon his order resulted in the seizure of infringing goods in their premises upon which the Public Prosecutor instituted the criminal actions against each of them separately and the plaintiffs have joined such actions.
In its identically motivated decisions (*) the Criminal Court has ruled to:
Confirm, on the basis of an experts’ opinion that the goods seized in the business premises of the infringes do infringe the registered trademarks of the plaintiffs.
Ban the exercise of professional activity together with closure of the professional activity for 1 year.
The punishment of the defendants to 8 month of imprisonment, which was then turned into pecuniary fine.
The definite seizure of the confiscated infringing goods found in the business premises of the infringers,
Upon the defendant’s appeal, in its decision (**) the 7th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court overturned the initial decision on grounds of the jointly instituted action which should be instituted against each defendant independently and further on grounds of receipt by the Court Clerk of unsigned experts’ affidavit. The 3rd Penal Court of Istanbul (***) decided to uphold the decision of the Supreme Court and ruled the same judgment and penalties of its initial decision separately against each defendant.
The Court has suspended and remitted to the future the serving of the penalties as on the basis of the behavior during the proceedings of the defendant it has been convinced that the defendant is not likely to commit a similar offence in the future.
(*) CHANEL vs. DENHO AK
CHANEL S.A. NUH HAPPANİ
FENDİ PAOLO S. LLE. S.A.S. POZANT SEFER
ETIENNE AIGNER AG FERİT KUTLUK.
MOON SHADOW S.p.A MEHMET NECDET TONGUÇ
ARTİN KİLECİ
YILMAZ HACIAHMENTOĞLU
TEMEL YAŞAR ÖZBEN
ERGUN VURAL
3rd Penal Court of Istanbul
Decision No. 1995/1515 – 1997/105
(**) 7th Criminal Chamber of Supreme Court
Decision No. 1998/3943 – 1998/4697
(***) CHANEL vs. TEMEL YAŞAR ÖZBEN
CHANEL S.A.
FENDİ PAOLO S. LLE. S.A.S.
ETIENNE AIGNER AG.
MOON SHADOW S.p.A
3rd Court of Istanbul
Decision No. 1998/1638 – 1999/1281 (October 25, 1999)
In the action (*) against shop keepers and retailers dealing with and selling infringing goods carrying the trademarks “CHANEL, FENDI, ETIENNE, AIGNER, MOSCHINO” as of the complaints filed by the plaintiffs to the Public Prosecutor, the police raids affected upon his order resulted in the seizure of infringing goods in their premises upon which the Public Prosecutor instituted the criminal actions against each of them separately and the plaintiffs have joined such actions.
In its identically motivated decisions (*) the Criminal Court has ruled to:
· Confirm, on the basis of an experts’ opinion that the goods seized in the business premises of the infringes do infringe the registered trademarks of the plaintiffs.
· Ban the exercise of professional activity together with closure of the professional activity for 1 year.
· The punishment of the defendants to 8 month of imprisonment, which was then turned into pecuniary fine.
· The definite seizure of the confiscated infringing goods found in the business premises of the infringers,
Upon the defendant’s appeal, in its decision (**) the 7th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court overturned the initial decision (*) on grounds of the jointly instituted action which should be instituted against each defendant independently and further on grounds of receipt by the court clerk of unsigned experts’ affidavit. The 3rd Penal Court of Istanbul (***) decided to uphold the decision of the Supreme Court and ruled the same judgment and penalties of its initial decision (*) separately against each defendant.
The Court has suspended and remitted to the future the serving of the penalties as on the basis of the behavior during the proceedings of the defendant it has been convinced that the defendant is not likely to commit a similar offence in the future.
(*) CHANEL vs. DENHO AK
CHANEL S.A. NUH HAPPANİ
FENDİ PAOLO S. LLE. S.A.S. POZANT SEFER
ETIENNE AIGNER AG FERİT KUTLUK.
MOON SHADOW S.p.A MEHMET NECDET TONGUÇ
ARTİN KİLECİ
YILMAZ HACIAHMENTOĞLU
TEMEL YAŞAR ÖZBEN
ERGUN VURAL
3rd Penal Court of Istanbul
Decision No. 1995/1515 – 1997/105
(**) 7th Criminal Chamber of Supreme Court
Decision No. 1998/3943 – 1998/4697
(***) CHANEL vs. PUZANT SEFER
CHANEL S.A.
FENDİ PAOLO S. LLE. S.A.S.
ETIENNE AIGNER AG.
MOON SHADOW S.p.A
3rd Court of Istanbul
Decision No. 1998/1631 – 1999/1278 (October 25, 1999)
In the action (*) against shop keeper/retailer dealing with and selling infringing goods carrying the trademarks “CHANEL, FENDI, ETIENNE, AIGNER, MOSCHINO” as of the complaints filed by the plaintiffs to the Public Prosecutor, the police raids affected upon his order resulted in the seizure of infringing goods in their premises upon which the Public Prosecutor instituted the criminal actions against him.
In its decisions the Criminal Court has confirmed, on the basis of an experts’ opinion that the goods seized in the business premises of the infringes do infringe the registered trademarks of the plaintiffs and ruled to the definite seizure of the confiscated infringing goods found in the business premises of the infringers and has applied the penalties pursuant to the Trademarks Act no.551 and condemned the defendant to:
* 2 years of imprisonment
* 2.250.000. - Turkish Liras of pecuniary fine
* The closure for 1 year of the business premise
* Ban the exercise of professional activity for 1 year
The court has suspended and remitted to the future the serving of the penalties as on the basis of the behaviors during the proceedings of the defendant it has been convinced that the defendant is not likely to commit a similar offence in the future.
(*) CHANEL
CHANEL S.A.
FENDİ PAOLO S. LLE. S.A.S.
ETIENNE AIGNER AG.
MOON SHADOW S.p.A
vs.
MEHMET NECDET TONGUÇ
3rd Penal Court of Istanbul
Decision No. 1998/1515 – 2000/388 (April 7, 2000)
In the action (*) against shop keeper/retailer dealing with and selling counterfeit goods carrying the trademarks “CHANEL, FENDI, ETIENNE, AIGNER, MOSCHINO”, upon complaint filed by the plaintiffs to the Public Prosecutor, the police raids effected upon his order resulted in the seizure of infringing goods in their premises upon which the Public Prosecutor instituted the criminal actions against him.
In its decision (*), the Criminal Court, ruled, on the basis of an experts’ opinion that the goods seized in the defendant’s business premises infringe the registered trademarks of the plaintiffs and ordered the definite seizure of the confiscated counterfeit goods found in the defendant’s business premises and applied the penalties pursuant to the Article 61A-(b) of the amended Trademarks Act No. 551 and condemned the defendant to:
* 8 months of imprisonment
* 2.250.000. - Turkish Liras of pecuniary fine
* The closure for 1 year of the business premise
* Ban the exercise of professional activity for 1 year
* The definite seizure of the confiscated counterfeit goods found in the business premises of the infringers,
The court has suspended and remitted to the future the serving of the penalties as, on the basis of the behavior during the proceedings of the defendant, it has been convinced that the defendant is not likely to commit a similar offence in the future.
CHANEL
CHANEL S.A.
FENDİ PAOLO S. LLE. S.A.S.
ETIENNE AIGNER AG.
MOON SHADOW S.p.A.
vs.
MEHMET YILMAZ HACIAHMETOĞLU
3rd Penal Court of Istanbul
(*) Decision No. 1998/1637 – 2000/484 (April 21, 2000)