TC
SUPREME
COURT OF APPEALS
Main Case No.: 2013/16348
Decision No.: 2014/218
Date: January 7, 2014
The court in Ankara rendered its decision on December 2 regarding the case between the parties. Regarding the intellectual and industrial property rights case No. 2011/61 dated May 31, 2012, the court’s decision, and Decision No. 2012/15941, the petition filed by the plaintiff’s attorney on June 24, 2013, challenging Decision No. 2012/109-2013/13075, and the request for correction of the decision, along with the amended report added to the file, the petitions, defenses, and trial proceedings in the file, and all documents read during the proceedings, were reviewed and considered:
The plaintiff’s attorney determined that, in connection with the conclusion of a contract regarding the sale and rental of medical gas cylinders with the plaintiff’s clients, the defendant company operates nationwide using the plaintiff’s medical gas cylinders—specifically, the defendant’s No. 24 cylinders bearing its logo—in relation to the plaintiff’s scrap metal business.
The defendant argued that there was no connection between the existence of the cylinders and any similar commercial lease or contract with the plaintiff, and claimed that the defendant, who is engaged in the scrap business, was holding the cylinders for the purpose of selling them. T he plaintiff demanded that the twenty-four cylinders, which the defendant was unlawfully holding, be returned to the client in their original condition, or alternatively, that the total value of the 24 cylinders—exceeding 432 TL—amounting to 12,234.24 TL, be paid to the client, and filed a lawsuit. The defendant’s attorney requested that the case be dismissed.
.
Based on the evidence gathered by the court in the case, regarding the transfer of the cylinders—which had been taken from the company’s possession in connection with its initial operations in the gas sector, with the consent of the plaintiff and the property owner—to the defendant, it was confirmed that any person who acquires possession in good faith is protected, even if they lack the authority to dispose of such possession, and on the grounds that the defendant’s claim was not made in bad faith, the decision to dismiss the case, made by our chamber upon the plaintiff’s counsel’s objection, has been upheld.
The plaintiff’s counsel has filed a motion to have the decision corrected.
The case concerns the demand for the full return of the cylinders allegedly belonging to the plaintiff, and if not returned, the recovery of expenses.
It is undisputed that the cylinders used in medical gas filling belong to the plaintiff, that the cylinders in question were transferred to companies not involved in the lawsuit along with the gas, that the gas was sold as it was depleted, and that while the gas was transferred, ownership of the cylinders was not transferred. Additionally, the fact that the cylinders seized at the defendant’s workplace were original, bore the plaintiff’s logo, and that the defendant—who is engaged in scrap dealing—purchased these cylinders from a company not involved in the lawsuit in exchange for an invoice has been included in the case file. The defendant claims to have purchased the cylinders in good faith from the possessor as collateral.
.
Pursuant to Article 985 of the Law, the possession of a movable property is deemed to constitute ownership of that property. Furthermore, as a general rule, the gains obtained in bad faith by those who have profited from this presumption of ownership are protected. The presumption of ownership under this provision is of a subjective nature. In other words, the acquirer must not have known or been in a position to know that the person claiming ownership lacked the authority to act.
Good faith is presumed and is accepted as a presumption. However, no one who fails to exercise the due diligence expected of them under the circumstances may claim good faith. Furthermore, the acquirer’s failure to conduct an investigation in situations where the owner’s lack of authority could have been discovered negates the claim of good faith. (See Oguzman-Selici-Özdemir: Property Law, pp. 96–97)
In this case, the tubes are of a medical nature and clearly belong to the plaintiff; they are marked as such, and their circulation is subject to regulations and standards governing specific market activities; the scrap trade is under the defendant’s ownership; the profits derived from the relevant activities are not significant; this fact demonstrates the absence of good faith in the plaintiff’s interest; Upon granting the plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to vacate the decision, our Decision dated June 24, 2013, No. 2012/15941 (Case No. 2013/13075) must be vacated, and a ruling must be issued finding a violation of the judgment for the reasons outlined above.
CONCLUSION:
For the reasons stated above, upon the acceptance of the plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to correct the decision, Decision No. 2013/13075 regarding Case No. 2012/15951 has been set aside, and Decision No. 2013/13075 has been annulled in favor of the plaintiff for the reasons stated above. The fees for the preliminary appeal, appeal, and motion to correct the decision were refunded to the plaintiff and the official responsible for correcting the decision by unanimous decision on January 7, 2014, upon request.