In short
If a contract manufacturer sold the model to someone else, what is looked at is whether the order and the second sale went to the same model. The right holder ties the mould, the technical drawing, or the sample they gave the manufacturer to the order document, and if that document writes under whose trademark it will go out, it is read from there. The same model going out under the manufacturer's own trademark, or to another buyer, is read from the sale outside that order. Similarity in a shop window is not enough on its own. The file does not of itself close because there is no registration. Because there is a registration, one does not stop looking for the document of the second sale either. The year of protection is not written into this distinction as a figure.
The order writes whose trademark
The order form may write how many will be made, and under whose trademark the goods will go out. If it does not, the manufacturer may have opened the same mould to someone else, and that opening does not mean the same thing in every file. Opening it does not give rise to a finding of infringement in every file. What gives rise to it is whether the model appears to belong to you, who holds the technical drawing, and the document of the second sale. If the contract writes only the labour price and is silent on who the appearance belongs to, the invoice does not fill that silence. The labour price is not counted as authority to sell the model, and the trademark name on the order line is not treated as changed later. The general test of an unregistered appearance stands in the account of a copied design. The reading of a registered appearance stands in the design infringement text.
The date of the second sale
If the second buyer's invoice carries a date after your order, the order of time is read. If there is no date, a sentence of "they saw it from us" is not enough, and a fair photograph does not stand in for the date either. The product in the manufacturer's window is placed beside your sample. The measurement, the stitching, and the label should stand in the same photograph. If you did not make the sample yourself and sent it to a buyer, that door is in the sample text. If the manufacturer had the appearance registered in its own name, ownership stays apart in the account of misappropriation of the design. The mould standing in the workshop does not of itself give ownership to the manufacturer. Who paid the mould fee is on the invoice. If there is no invoice, the item in the workshop is not counted as the owner of the design.
The manufacturer and the right holder are separated
The contract manufacturer's sale is read by separating it from the document of the model you gave, and the second customer's name is not of itself written onto the order line. In the petition, the manufacturer's trade name and your trade name stand apart. No conclusion is built before the application papers show which appearance it belongs to, and who the mould came from. The office being in Çankaya does not choose the competent authority in a design dispute. The neighbourhood of the workshop does not, on its own, establish the place where the action will be heard either. The decision is not given while the order, the technical drawing, and the invoice of the second sale are not side by side. One of the missing documents is not stuck in place of another, and an image of the workshop does not, on its own, say under whose trademark it went out.
The registration test is not built here
Law No. 6769, the Industrial Property Code carries the frame of the industrial right. In a contract-manufacturing file, the sale that went outside the order is looked for first. The question of registered or unregistered is in the neighbouring texts, and that test is not copied into this body. The year of protection is not carried here either. If the set of documents is incomplete, it is not announced who the model belongs to. A photograph of the workshop does not take the place of the order either. The same mould going to two buyers does not produce the same ruling in every file. The second buyer's invoice and your order stay on separate lines, and who holds the technical drawing is read beside that line as well.
Conclusion
In a contract-manufacturing file, what is looked at is whether the order and the second sale went to the same model, and the registration test is not rewritten here. If there is no invoice for the mould fee, the item in the workshop is not counted as the right holder. The technical drawing does not, on its own, give rise to authority to sell either. The labour price does not mean the model was transferred, and similarity in a window does not stand in for the order. The frame sits on the intellectual property law page. If the order document and the second sale are not side by side, it is not said who the model went to. A similar window does not close that gap. A photograph of the sample does not stand in for the order line either, the mould in the workshop does not, on its own, choose the right holder, and the labour price does not give rise to authority to sell.