ERDEM-NEWSLETTER-2018-metin

319 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW subject to the coexistence agreement are not misleading to the consum- ers in such a way so as to cause any confusion, and attention should be paid not to include such provisions that are prohibited by competition law in a way that creates a barrier to entry into the market. The abovementioned disputes arising out of the agreement be- tween Apple Computer and Apple Corp. may be cited as an example regarding the importance of the content of the agreement. After Apple Computer released iTunes in September, 2003, Apple Corps filed an action due to the violation of the coexistence agreement, and the Lon- don High Court concluded in its decision rendered in 2006 that Apple Computer did not violate the agreement. Whilst the plaintiff, Apple Corps, claimed that digital music is merely another form of physical music distribution, and the agreement between the parties was vio- lated by Apple Computer, the defendant, Apple Computer, defended that digital music sales cannot be evaluated within the scope of the agreement between the parties. The Court evaluated the subject from the consumers’ perspective, and decided that the agreement was not violated in any form since the Apple Computer logo is used in relation to the software, and to not the music services 6 . Conclusion Coexistence agreements may provide legal opportunities that might prove useful to resolve disputes that might occur respecting trademark rights without creating responsibility for the parties. How- ever, many elements, including industrial property laws and competi- tion laws, shall be taken into consideration in order that the agreements are valid, binding, and address any possible disputes. 6 https://sites.udel.edu/cisc356/2014/04/21/apple-corps-v-apple-comput- er-1978-2006 / (Access date: 02.01. 2019).