T.R.
SUPREME COURT
- LAW OFFICE
Base Number: 2013/16348
Decision No: 2014/218
K. Date:7.1.2014
In the case heard between the parties, the plaintiff against the decision of the Chamber, dated 24.06.2013 and numbered 2012/15941-2013/13075, which approved the decision dated 31.05.2012 and numbered 2011/61-2012/109 given by the Ankara 2nd Civil Court of Intellectual and Industrial Rights. After hearing the report prepared for the file and reading and examining all the documents in the file, the petition, the petitions, the hearing minutes and all the documents were discussed and considered:
The plaintiff’s attorney stated that his client is engaged in filling the cylinders with medical gas, which he has allocated by contracting cylinder rental and medical gas sales with his customers, that there are cylinders owned by his client based on the lease agreement in dealers and customers throughout the country. Claiming that it was determined that the cylinder bearing the logo and title exists, that there is no use, rental, or any similar contract or commercial relationship between the client and the defendant, that the defendant, who engages in scrap business, has the cylinders in his possession for the purpose of selling, the defendant shall return the twenty-four cylinders unjustly in his possession to his client, otherwise, he demanded and sued that 12,234.24 TL, which is the cost of 24 cylinders, each for 432 TL, be collected from the defendant and given to his client.
The defendant’s attorney requested that the case be dismissed.
According to the evidence gathered by the court, the possession of the cylinders subject to the lawsuit was lost with the consent of the plaintiff, the cylinders in the nature of movable property, which were released with the consent of the owner, were transferred to the out-of-court company by the companies that bought the gas for the first time, and that the possession of a movable property would be deemed its owner, and that the possession of a movable property would be deemed to be its owner. The decision to reject the case on the grounds that the defendant did not have malicious intent, was upheld by our Department upon the appeal of the plaintiff’s attorney.
Plaintiff’s attorney filed a request for rectification.
The case is about the return of the cylinders claimed to belong to the plaintiff, or the request for the collection of the price in case of failure.
It is not a matter of dispute that the cylinders used in the filling of medical gas belong to the plaintiff, that the cylinders of the aforementioned type are left with the gas as a loan to non-litigation companies, that gas is sold as they are emptied, that the ownership of the cylinders is not transferred, that their possession is transferred. In addition, the scope of the file confirms that the cylinders seized at the defendant’s workplace are original, that they have the plaintiff’s logo on them, and that the defendant, who is dealing with scrap, bought these cylinders from the non-litigation company against an invoice. The defendant argued that he bought the cylinders in good faith from the possessor.
Pursuant to Article 985 of the TMK, as a rule, the owner of a movable thing is considered its owner. Again, as a rule, these gains of those who acquire rights from the possession in good faith by relying on this presumption of ownership are protected. The goodwill in the aforementioned regulation is subjective. In other words, the winner must not know or be in a position to know that the possessor who has earned the right does not have the authority to do so. Goodwill is essential and presumed to exist. However, a person who does not show the care expected from him in accordance with the requirements of the situation cannot claim goodwill. In addition, the failure of the researches to be carried out by the winner in cases that may reveal the authority of the dispossessed eliminates the claim of good faith. (See. Oğuzman-Seliçi -Özdemir: Property Law, p.96-97).
In the face of this situation, the tubes belonging to the plaintiff are of medical quality, there are signs on them that clearly show that they belong to the plaintiff, their placing on the market and circulation are subject to special legislation and standards, the defendant operating in the scrap business does not show the necessary care in terms of gaining ownership, in this respect, in good faith. While the decision should be reversed for the benefit of the plaintiff in order to resolve the dispute, by accepting the plaintiff’s attorney’s request to rectify the decision, our Chamber’s approval of the decision dated 24.06.2013 and numbered 2012/15941 Basis-2013/13075 was annulled and the verdict was reversed for the reasons explained above. had to give.
CONCLUSION: With the acceptance of the plaintiff’s attorney’s request for correction of the decision for the reasons explained above, the approval decision of our Chamber dated 24.06.2013 and numbered 2012/15951 Basis-2013/13075 was annulled and the decision was overturned for the benefit of the plaintiff for the reasons explained above. It was unanimously decided on 07.01.2014 that the person who appealed and requested rectification be extradited.