Presumption Of Ownership

15 Jun Presumption Of Ownership

T.C.
SUPREME
11. LEGAL DEPARTMENT
Principal No: 2013/16348
Decision No: 2014/218
K. Date: 7.1.2014

Ankara 2 in the case between the parties. The Court of intellectual and industrial Rights issued 31.05.2012 day and 2011/61-2012/109 no decision approving the department’s decision 24.06.2013 day and 2012/15941-2013/13075 no decision was made against the plaintiff’s attorney and it was understood that the decision was made within the duration of the petition, the report for the file was listened and the petition, :
The attorney of the plaintiff stated that his client is engaged in the filling of medical gas into the tubes he has allocated with his clients by concluding a contract for tube rental and sale of medical gas; that there are tubes belonging to his client whose ownership is based on the lease agreement in dealers and customers throughout the country; that the defendant engaged in scrapping, claiming that the defendant is in possession for the purpose of selling the tubes, the defendant has requested and sued that twenty-four tubes which are found unfairly in his / her case be returned to his / her client,otherwise, 24 tubes from 432 TL 12.234, 24 TL be collected from the defendant and given to his / her client.
The acting defendant requested a dismissal of the case.
The court held that, according to the evidence gathered, the possession of the tubes in question of the case was taken out of the hands of the plaintiff with the consent of the owner, the tubes of movable property which came out of the hands of the owner with his consent were transferred from him to the non-litigation company by the enterprises that bought the gas for the first time, decision, upon the appeal of the plaintiff’s attorney, our office has been upheld.
The deputy plaintiff has requested a correction of the decision.
The case is related to the demand for the return of the tubes, which are claimed to belong to the plaintiff, and, if not, the collection of the cost.
There is no dispute that the tubes used in the filling of medical gas belong to the plaintiff, that the tubes of this type are left with the gas to the non-litigation firms as arities, that the gas is sold when discharged, that the ownership of the tubes is not transferred, and that the ownership of the tubes is transferred only. In addition, the original contents of the tubes seized at the defendant’s workplace, with the plaintiff logo on them, and the aspects of the defendant dealing in scrap buying these tubes from the non-litigation firm in return for the invoice are also fixed with the file scope. The defendant argued that he purchased the tubes of securities from the bell with good intentions.
TMK’s 985. as a rule under the clause, the bell of a movable thing is deemed its owner. As a rule, these gains are protected by those who acquire rights from the ring in good faith by relying on this presumption of ownership. The goodwill in the aforementioned arrangement is subjective. In other words, the winner should not know or be in a position to know that the bell that entitles him is not authorized to do so. Goodwill is principal and is considered to exist as presumption. However, no one who does not show due diligence in accordance with the requirements of the situation can claim good faith. Furthermore, the fact that the researches made by the winner have not been carried out in cases which may reveal the incompetence of the depositor shall eliminate the claim of goodwill. (See fig. Oğuzman-Seliçi-Özdemir : Property Law, P.96-97).
In this case, it is accepted that the tubes belonging to the plaintiff are of medical nature, that there are signs on them that clearly belong to the plaintiff, that their presentation and circulation are subject to special legislation and standards, that the defendant operating in the field of scrapping does not show due diligence in terms of the acquisition of property, that in, with the acceptance of the request for correction of the decision of the plaintiff’s attorney, it was necessary to remove the decision of our office on 24.06.2013, 2012/15941 basis-2013/13075 decision no.
Conclusion: with the acceptance of the decision correction request of the plaintiff’s attorney for the reasons described above, it was decided unanimously on 07.01.2014 that the decision of our office on 24.06.2013, 2012/15951 basis-2013/13075 decision no.for the benefit of the plaintiff by removing the decision for the reasons described above,