In Turkey, Criminal appeals are very effective in combating counterfeiting, But some criminal courts are hesitant to issue search and seizure warrants.

In this respect, Istanbul's courts are the most problematic. This court is important to brand owners, Because its jurisdiction covers important places of business, Like the Grand Bazaar, Taksim and Tatakale. The criminal chamber of the Istanbul Court will reject a request for a search and seizure warrant without any specific and satisfactory reason, This has been done for quite some time.

Some law firms have been working with ngos, Several high-level meetings were also held with the Turkish Ministry of Justice, Trying to solve the long-standing problem of some courts, It's not the right thing to do.

Important precedent

2022 years 9 month 23 day, Istanbul Court Fourth Criminal Court according to the Turkish Court of Appeal (CoC) A decision yet to be made public, The complainant's objection to the decision of Criminal Court III to reject the request for a search and seizure warrant was accepted, And a search and seizure warrant was issued.

CoC The decision was made by No 19 Criminal court 2021 years 1 month 21 Daily control 2020/1872 Sign sum 2021/318 Issued in the form of a court order, It's an important precedent for brand owners.

In this dispute, The brand owners filed a joint criminal complaint with the Istanbul Prosecutor's Office, Specialized intellectual property prosecutors applied to the criminal court for search and seizure warrants. The evidence in the file is a sample purchased from the infringer, It is accompanied by expert opinions proving that the goods purchased are counterfeit.

Istanbul's Third Criminal Court rejected the search and seizure request, Only express "Reasonable suspicion of a crime is not supported by objective and convincing evidence, Evidence is necessary for a search and seizure warrant" . The court also stated that, Expert opinion cannot be considered objective, Because it was submitted to the court by the complainant.

After the petitioner raised objections, The Fourth Criminal Court took over the case. The court accepted the objection and granted the search and seizure warrant, Found the evidence submitted by the complainant sufficient and that his doubts were reasonable, Surprise inspections are allowed, Hundreds of fakes were seized, Prevented crime.

In this reference CoC In a dispute over precedent, The complainant was unable to submit receipts or invoices showing the place of purchase, But they submitted an expert report, The counterfeit nature of the samples purchased without a receipt was confirmed, The local prosecutor's office asked the police to investigate in secret, Confirmed that the product has been on sale at the relevant address.

CoC The court held that, Expert reports can be considered "Reasonable doubt" Sufficient evidence of, Because secret police investigation records also support the complainant's claim. The Fourth Criminal Court also made it clear, Brand owners do not file complaints against sellers of genuine products.

CoC The reasoning of the judgment was sufficient, And stressed that complaints from brand owners should be assessed in a broader way. This does not mean that the criminal court should not seek further evidence, Such as receipts and police investigation reports, To support the brand owner's complaint, But outright and unjustified refusal decisions by the criminal court can no longer be accepted without question.

Although brand owners may have had unpleasant experiences with criminal proceedings in recent years, but CoC Has already begun to have an impact. (Compiled from www. managingip. com)

translation: Rason group　proofread: Wang Dan

　　disclaimer: This network reprint or compile the original article from the Internet, Does not represent the views of this website or confirm the authenticity of its content. If the source is mislabeled or the copyright of the article is involved, Please contact this website, This network will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.