Supreme Court of Appeals, 11th Civil Chamber
Case Number: 2015/12923
Decision Number: 2017/2724
“Text of Justice”
COURT: … … 1. INTELLECTUAL AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
In the case between the parties … … 1. The Court of Cassation requested a review of the decision of the Intellectual and Industrial Rights Court of First Instance dated 07/07/2015 and numbered 2010/170-2015/143 by the plaintiff’s representative, and it was determined that the appeal petition was filed within the time limit. Since the amount was below TL 21,242, the appeal was reviewed, subject to the provisions of Article 3/2 of Law No. 6100. After hearing the report prepared by the investigating judge regarding the case file, reviewing the petition, defenses, trial minutes, and all documents in the file, the necessity of the work was discussed and a decision was reached:
The plaintiff’s attorney states that he acted as an attorney in lawsuits filed against holding companies such as … and … on behalf of his client. He states that he has obtained a great deal of information that is difficult to access through research, that he completed his master’s degree in international corporate law in … , that his client, who has a doctorate in the same field, has classified and summarized this information and compiled it into hundreds of folders, including footnotes, and that he has prepared petitions for each company operating in this way using this information, which has scientific value, He updated the pleadings in this manner, and as a result of detailed studies in both corporate law and capital markets law, the pleadings, which are over 30 pages long,
could be used in lawsuits filed by the defendant by almost verbatim copying the client’s pleadings, with even the references, quotations, and bolded sections being identical. that the petitions are works of authorship, that the use of the petitions without the client’s permission and knowledge constitutes a violation of the rights arising from the Copyright Law, that the defendant’s plagiarism is not partial but complete, and that the defendant committed an unjust act by using the client’s work.
Prevention of new infringements by means of a precautionary measure, cessation of the existing infringement and its elimination with all consequences, unauthorized use of the petition, separately for each claim and response petition in accordance with Article 68/1 of the Copyright Law, with rights to more remaining reserved. … In accordance with the Bar Association Fee Schedule, material damages of 5,190.00 TL, which is three times the amount of 1,730.00 TL, moral damages of 3,000.00 TL per client, pursuant to Article 70/2 and 70/3 of the Copyright Law, the defendant’s entire earnings and attorney’s fees to be paid to the client, and the judgment to be announced.
The defendant’s representative argued that the petition could not be considered a work as claimed by the plaintiff, and even if it were considered a work, the plaintiff was not the author of the work, that the related lawsuits were known lawsuits, that they had met with the Solidarity Association and Attorney Plaintiff and his client Attorney … and that they received an offer to pursue these cases in Turkey, that the association and its members’ legal representation was assigned to the client due to the plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with the service provided, that the petition and documents were submitted by the association, and that the client did not commit any wrongful or unlawful acts, requesting that the case be dismissed.
Considering the court’s claim, defense, collected evidence, expert report, and the entire file, the petitions may be works that are exceptionally protected in terms of the personal interpretations and research of their owners, and the information used for this purpose is defended by a lawyer for the first time, is not public knowledge, and demonstrates intellectual creativity. It was stated that, in the category of scientific and literary works that could be the subject of the pleadings, a low level of expression and insufficient information in scientific works would not be a characteristic, that creativity would be required provided that the characteristic was not ordinary and was of a certain level, and that the plaintiff’s pleadings should be systematic and organized in accordance with the relevant law.
The main contract, court decisions, doctrine, and SPK report form a specific framework in the complaints due to the importance of the subject matter. Within this framework, the client’s grievance and the events that led to the claim are explained. In the complaints, evidence proving these facts is also partially referred to. From this perspective, the obligation to substantiate the claim as stipulated in the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) has been fulfilled. Although the HMK was not in force at the time the complaints were filed, it has been accepted in the application of the Code of Civil Procedure (HUMK) that the burden of substantiation must be fulfilled in complaints.
While it is generally accepted that the legal grounds, i.e., the matters that must be included in the complaint according to the law, are included in the complaint, elements that could stand out in terms of originality and reflect the characteristics of the plaintiff have not been included, and doctrinal references have been used several times in the complaints. The petitions included brief explanations of legal provisions and opinions on substantive law, and, as they are frequently used in practice, case law texts were also included. Although originality is not required, they do not constitute works of art as they do not meet the condition of possessing a certain level of quality.
The court ruled to dismiss the case on the grounds that the sections determined to be malicious were excerpts from the Capital Markets Board (CMB) and the law, and that this information was available in the archives of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The decision was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney.
Based on the information and documents in the file, since there is no procedural or legal violation in the discussion and evaluation of the evidence based on the grounds of the court’s decision, all of the plaintiff’s attorney’s appeals are unfounded.
CONCLUSION:
For the reasons explained above, it was unanimously decided on 09.05.2017 to reject all appeals of the plaintiff’s attorney, to APPROVE the decision found to be in accordance with procedure and law, and to notify the plaintiff of the remaining 3.70 TL appeal fee.