T.C. \u0130STANBUL B\u00d6LGE ADL\u0130YE MAHKEMES\u0130 44. HUKUK DA\u0130RES\u0130<\/p>\n\n\n\n
T \u00dc R K M \u0130 L L E T \u0130 A D I N A
\u0130 S T \u0130 N A F M A H K E M E S \u0130 K A R A R I<\/p>\n\n\n\n
DOSYA NO : 2021\/566 Esas<\/p>\n\n\n\n
KARAR NO: 2021\/538<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u0130NCELENEN KARARIN
MAHKEMES\u0130 : \u0130stanbul Anadolu 1. Fikr\u00ee Ve S\u0131na\u00ee Haklar Hukuk Mahkemesi<\/p>\n\n\n\n
TAR\u0130H\u0130 : 26\/12\/2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n
NUMARASI : 2015\/149 E. – 2019\/359 K.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
DAVANIN KONUSU: Marka (Tecav\u00fcz\u00fcn Tespiti \u0130stemli)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u0130ST\u0130NAF KARAR TAR\u0130H\u0130: 20\/05\/2021<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Yukar\u0131da yaz\u0131l\u0131 ilk derece mahkemesi karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131, istinaf yasa yoluna ba\u015fvurulmas\u0131 \u00fczerine yap\u0131lan inceleme sonucunda;<\/p>\n\n\n\n
G E R E \u011e \u0130 D \u00dc \u015e \u00dc N \u00dc L D \u00dc : Davac\u0131 vekili dava dilek\u00e7esini duru\u015fmada tekrarla; M\u00fcvekkili firman\u0131n 1956 y\u0131l\u0131ndan beri T\u00fcrkiye\u2019de faaliyet g\u00f6sterdi\u011fini, m\u00fcvekkiline ait \u2026 gibi tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015f markalar\u0131n geni\u015f bir t\u00fcketici kitlesi taraf\u0131ndan bilindi\u011fini, dava konusu markalar\u0131n y\u00fcksek reklam gideri ve yo\u011fun \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ile tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015f marka haline getirildi\u011fini, daval\u0131n\u0131n “\u2026” markal\u0131 s\u0131v\u0131 \u00e7ama\u015f\u0131r deterjan\u0131 ambalajlar\u0131n\u0131n davac\u0131ya ait 67889 numaral\u0131 “\u2026” ve 2009 54097 numaral\u0131 “\u2026 “, 2010 39634 numaral\u0131 “\u2026” markal\u0131 s\u0131v\u0131 deterjan ambalajlar\u0131 \u00fczerinde yer verilen sembol ve ifadelere ayniyet derecesinde yer verildi\u011fini, daval\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketiciyi yan\u0131ltma amac\u0131yla hareket etti\u011fini, bu \u015fekilde davac\u0131n\u0131n marka haklar\u0131na tecav\u00fcz edildi\u011fini, haks\u0131z rekabette bulunuldu\u011funu, Bak\u0131rk\u00f6y 1. FSHHM’nin 2015\/59 D.\u0130\u015f say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131 ile tepit yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek, marka hakk\u0131na tecav\u00fcz\u00fcn ve haks\u0131z rekabetin tespitine, \u00f6nlenmesine, refine ve tekrar\u0131n\u0131n meni ile davac\u0131n\u0131n marka hakk\u0131na tecav\u00fcz te\u015fkil eden her t\u00fcrl\u00fc \u00fcr\u00fcn ve malzemelere el konulmas\u0131na, karar kesinle\u015ftikten sonra imhas\u0131na, karar kesinle\u015fti\u011finde h\u00fckm\u00fcn ilan\u0131na, fazlaya ili\u015fkin haklar\u0131 sakl\u0131 kalmak \u015fart\u0131yla \u015fimdilik 1.000,00 TL maddi tazminat\u0131n avans faizi ile birlikte daval\u0131dan tahsiline karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir. Daval\u0131 vekili cevap dilek\u00e7esini duru\u015fmada tekrarla; Davan\u0131n yetkili mahkemede a\u00e7\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, zira yetkili mahkemenin Bak\u0131rk\u00f6y Fikri S\u0131nai Haklar Hukuk Mahkemesi oldu\u011funu, m\u00fcvekkiline ait \u00fcr\u00fcnlerle davac\u0131 \u00fcr\u00fcnlerinin iltibasa neden olamayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131, m\u00fcvekkiline ait \u00fcr\u00fcnlerin ambalaj kutusunun fiziki \u00f6zelli\u011fi d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda, davac\u0131n\u0131n \u00fcr\u00fcnleriyle hi\u00e7bir yak\u0131nl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ancak bu durumun da ambalaj \u00fcreticilerinin maliyeti d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcrmek ad\u0131na tek tip veya birka\u00e7 \u015fekilden ibaret ambalaj \u00fcretmelerinden kaynakland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, dava konusu markalar\u0131n kullan\u0131ld\u0131klar\u0131 s\u0131n\u0131f ve ibare a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lma ihtimalini ihtiva etmedi\u011fini, bu sebeplerle a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir. \u0130lk derece mahkemesince yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonunda; Dava; davac\u0131ya ait \u2026 ve \u2026 markal\u0131 \u00fcr\u00fcnlere ait ambalajlar\u0131n ve markalar\u0131n iltibas olu\u015fturacak \u015fekilde kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 nedeniyle meydana geldi\u011fi iddia edilen marka haklar\u0131na tecav\u00fcz\u00fcn ve haks\u0131z rekabetin tespiti, \u00f6nlenmesi ve men’i ile maddi tazminata ili\u015fkindir. Davac\u0131 vekili 20.02.2017 tarihli \u0131slah dilek\u00e7esi ile davas\u0131n\u0131 tamamen \u0131slah etti\u011fini belirterek; al\u0131nan bilirki\u015fi raporu ile daval\u0131n\u0131n se\u00e7im \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc oldu\u011fu ve teknik zorunluluk bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 halde davac\u0131n\u0131n kullanm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu \u015fi\u015fenin \u015fekliyle ay\u0131rt edilemeyecek derecede benzer \u015fi\u015fe se\u00e7imi yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131, s\u0131v\u0131 aktar\u0131m\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flayan dava konusu bu t\u00fcr \u00fcr\u00fcnlerde ay\u0131rt edicili\u011fi sa\u011flayan unsurlar\u0131n kapak tasar\u0131m\u0131 ile etiketin geometrik dizayn\u0131 ve g\u00f6vde tasar\u0131m\u0131 oldu\u011fu, daval\u0131n\u0131n kullanm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu bu unsurlar\u0131n tamam\u0131n\u0131n davac\u0131 kullan\u0131m\u0131na ay\u0131rt edilemeyecek derecede benzer oldu\u011funun tespit edildi\u011fini, bu durumun haks\u0131z rekabet te\u015fkil etti\u011fi, buna ba\u011fl\u0131 olarak davac\u0131n\u0131n iltibas te\u015fkil eden kullan\u0131m\u0131 nedeniyle olu\u015fan zarara ili\u015fkin mali hesaplamada 556 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK’nin 66\/1 maddesinin uygulanamayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n, TTK’nun 54 ve 55. Maddelerinin uygulanaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n belirtildi\u011fini, bu nedenle dava sebebi ve dava de\u011feri y\u00f6n\u00fcnden davan\u0131n tamamen \u0131slah\u0131 ile, haks\u0131z rekabete dayal\u0131 olarak maddi tazminat talebinde bulunulmas\u0131 ve 1.000,00 TL olan dava de\u011ferinin 5.000,00 TL’ye y\u00fckseltilmesi gerekti\u011fini belirterek, davac\u0131n\u0131n \u2026 markal\u0131 \u00e7ama\u015f\u0131r deterjan\u0131 \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc ile benzer ambalaj ve sunumdan dolay\u0131 iltibas yaratan daval\u0131 tarafa ait dava konusu \u2026 markal\u0131 s\u0131v\u0131 \u00e7ama\u015f\u0131r deterjan\u0131 \u00fcr\u00fcnlerinden dolay\u0131, daval\u0131n\u0131n eyleminin haks\u0131z rekabet te\u015fkil etti\u011finin tespiti, haks\u0131z rekabetin \u00f6nlenmesi ve ref’i ile birlikte tekrar\u0131n\u0131n men’i, dava konusu \u00e7ama\u015f\u0131r deterjan\u0131 \u00fcr\u00fcnlerinin ve ambalajlar\u0131n\u0131n toplat\u0131lmas\u0131 ve masraf\u0131n\u0131n daval\u0131dan al\u0131narak imhas\u0131, fazlaya ili\u015fkin haklar\u0131m\u0131z sakl\u0131 kalmak \u00fczere \u015fimdilik 5.000,00 TL maddi tazminat\u0131n daval\u0131dan tahsiline karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir. HMK’nun 176. maddesine g\u00f6re; taraflardan her biri, yapm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu usul i\u015flemlerini, k\u0131smen veya tamamen \u0131slah edebilir. Islah\u0131n, bir taraf\u0131n tek tarafl\u0131 ve a\u00e7\u0131k bir irade beyan\u0131 ile yap\u0131lmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olup, kar\u015f\u0131 taraf\u0131n veya mahkemenin kabul\u00fcne ba\u011fl\u0131 de\u011fildir. Davan\u0131n tamamen \u0131slah\u0131 durumunda, yeni bir dava a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lacak, tamamen \u0131slah edilen dava ilk a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n devam\u0131 niteli\u011finde oldu\u011fundan, davan\u0131n ilk a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 06\/08\/2015 tarihinde a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015f say\u0131lacakt\u0131r. Dava a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihte y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckte bulunan 554 say\u0131l\u0131 End\u00fcstriyel Tasar\u0131mlar\u0131n Korunmas\u0131 Hakk\u0131nda KHK’nin 1. maddesinde yaln\u0131zca tescilli tasar\u0131mlar\u0131n bu KHK uyar\u0131nca korunaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n belirtildi\u011fi, bu durumda tescilsiz tasar\u0131mlara tecav\u00fcz edilmesi halinde eylemin TTK’da d\u00fczenlenen haks\u0131z rekabet h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine g\u00f6re de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekti\u011fi, davac\u0131 taraf\u00e7a marka haklar\u0131na tecav\u00fcz hukuki nedenine dayan\u0131larak a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n tamamen \u0131slah edilerek davac\u0131ya ait \u00fcr\u00fcnlerin tescilsiz ambalaj tasar\u0131mlar\u0131n\u0131n daval\u0131 taraf\u00e7a \u00fcr\u00fcnleri \u00fczerinde aynen kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 iddias\u0131na dayan\u0131larak haks\u0131z rekabetin tespiti, \u00f6nlenmesi ve haks\u0131z rekabet nedeniyle tazminat talep edildi\u011fi, TTK’nun 4\/1-a maddesi uyar\u0131nca TTK’da \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen hususlardan do\u011fan davalara bakma g\u00f6revinin Asliye Ticaret Mahkemesine ait oldu\u011fu, bu nedenle Mahkememizin bu davayla ilgili g\u00f6revsiz oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.Mahkemelerin g\u00f6revi kanunla d\u00fczenlenmi\u015f bulunup, g\u00f6rev konusu kamu d\u00fczenine ili\u015fkindir ve yarg\u0131laman\u0131n her a\u015famas\u0131nda re\u2019sen g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131nmal\u0131d\u0131r. HMK’nun 114\/1-c maddesinde davan\u0131n g\u00f6revli mahkemede a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131 dava \u015fart\u0131 olarak say\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olup, davan\u0131n mahkememizin g\u00f6rev alan\u0131 i\u00e7inde olmamas\u0131 ve g\u00f6revli mahkemede a\u00e7\u0131lmamas\u0131 nedeniyle dava \u015fart\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, davaya bakmakla g\u00f6revli mahkemenin \u0130stanbul Anadolu Asliye Ticaret Mahkemeleri oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, davan\u0131n g\u00f6revsizlik nedeniyle usulden reddine” karar verilmi\u015ftir. Davac\u0131 vekili istinaf dilek\u00e7esinde \u00f6zetle;-davan\u0131n marka hakk\u0131na dayal\u0131 tecav\u00fczden kaynaklanmas\u0131 sonucu g\u00f6revli mahkemenin fikri ve s\u0131nai haklar hukuk mahkemesi oldu\u011fu sabit oldu\u011fu gibi davac\u0131 m\u00fcvekkil’in taraf oldu\u011fu bire bir ayn\u0131 gerek\u00e7e ve talepli uyu\u015fmazl\u0131kta Yarg\u0131tay 11. Hukuk Dairesince g\u00f6revli mahkeme Fikri Ve S\u0131nai Haklar Hukuk Mahkemesi olarak g\u00f6sterilmi\u015f olmakla mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funu, Davac\u0131n\u0131n “\u2026” markas\u0131n\u0131n tescilli oldu\u011funu ve\u2026 \u015firketine ait oldu\u011funu, davac\u0131n\u0131n “\u2026 markal\u0131” \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc ile daval\u0131ya ait “\u2026 markal\u0131” \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn ambalaj bak\u0131m\u0131ndan ayniyet derecesinde benzer oldu\u011funu ve bu benzerli\u011fin haks\u0131z rekabet te\u015fkil etti\u011finin tespiti ile haks\u0131z rekabet ve tecav\u00fcz\u00fcn \u00f6nlenmesi ve u\u011fran\u0131lan zarar\u0131n tazmininin talep edildi\u011fi g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde davac\u0131 M\u00fcvekkil’in bizzat kendi emsal davas\u0131nda verilen Yarg\u0131tay karar\u0131 gere\u011fince g\u00f6revli mahkemenin Fikri ve S\u0131nai Haklar Hukuk Mahkemesi oldu\u011funu, Yarg\u0131tay taraf\u0131ndan huzurdaki dava ile bire bir \u015fekilde ayn\u0131 iddia ve talepli davada Fikri ve S\u0131nai Haklar Hukuk Mahkemesi’nin verdi\u011fi daval\u0131n\u0131n eyleminin haks\u0131z rekabet te\u015fkil etti\u011fine, daval\u0131n\u0131n bu tecav\u00fcz ve haks\u0131z rekabetin \u00f6nlenmesi, ref’i ve tekrar\u0131n\u0131n men’i ile \u00fcr\u00fcnlerin imhas\u0131na ve davac\u0131n\u0131n u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 maddi zarar\u0131n tahsiline ili\u015fkin karar\u0131 onam\u0131\u015f ve kesinle\u015fmi\u015f oldu\u011funu, \u0130stanbul 4. Fikri ve S\u0131nai Haklar Hukuk Mahkemesi 2013\/25 E. 2014\/76 K. say\u0131l\u0131 ve 08.04.2014 tarihli karar\u0131 ile Yarg\u0131tay 11. Hukuk Dairesi’nin 2014\/10550 E. ve 2014\/19482 K. say\u0131l\u0131 ve 11.12.2014 tarihli onama karar\u0131 dilek\u00e7e ekinde sunuldu\u011funu, bu nedenle istinaf taleplerinin kabul\u00fc ile mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015flerdir.\u0130nceleme, 6100 Say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nun (HMK) 355. maddesi h\u00fckm\u00fc uyar\u0131nca istinaf dilek\u00e7esinde belirtilen sebeplerle s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 olarak kamu d\u00fczenine ayk\u0131r\u0131 hususlar\u0131n olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6zetilerek yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.Somut olayda Mahkemece, davada marka hakk\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131 veya markaya tecav\u00fczle ilgili bir talep bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n fikri m\u00fclkiyet veya s\u0131nai m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131yla ilgisi bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, ticaret mahkemesine g\u00f6revsizlik verilmi\u015f ise de, davac\u0131n\u0131n Markas\u0131n\u0131n tescilli oldu\u011fu ve davac\u0131n\u0131n Marka hakk\u0131na dayanarak davas\u0131n\u0131 a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131, her ne kadar \u0131slah ile tecav\u00fczden do\u011fan haklar istenmi\u015f ise de, tecav\u00fcz\u00fcn olu\u015fup olu\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespitinin yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi buna g\u00f6re de \u00f6ncelikle daval\u0131n\u0131n davac\u0131n\u0131n marka hakk\u0131na ili\u015fkin tecav\u00fcz\u00fcn olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekmektedir. Markaya tecav\u00fcz\u00fcn tespitinin yap\u0131lmas\u0131 Fikri ve Sinai Haklar Hukuk Mahkemesi’nin g\u00f6rev alan\u0131na girdi\u011fi, haks\u0131z rekabetten do\u011fan iddialar ile marka tecav\u00fcz\u00fcne ili\u015fkin iddialar\u0131n birlikte g\u00f6r\u00fclmesinin gerekmesi halinde de daha \u00f6zel g\u00f6revli Fikri ve Sinai Haklar Mahkemesi’nin her iki davaya da bakmakla y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc bulundu\u011fu, Davac\u0131 taraf\u0131n taleplerinden birinin ihtisas mahkemesi olan Fikri ve S\u0131nai Haklar Hukuk Mahkemesinin g\u00f6rev alan\u0131na girdi\u011fi dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, 551 Say\u0131l\u0131 KHK’n\u0131n 146. maddesinin 1. f\u0131kras\u0131 gere\u011fince davan\u0131n Fikri ve S\u0131nai Haklar Hukuk Mahkemesinde g\u00f6r\u00fclmesi gerekmektedir (Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu’nun 2018\/11-546 Esas ve 2018\/1330 Karar, Yarg\u0131tay 11. H.D’nin 2014\/3511-6600 Esas ve Karar, Yarg\u0131tay 11. H.D.’nin 2012\/19078- 2013\/1600 Esas ve Karar say\u0131l\u0131 ilamlar\u0131). Fikri ve S\u0131nai Haklar Hukuk Mahkemeleri bir ihtisas mahkemesi olup, \u00f6zel bilgi ve uzmanl\u0131k gerektiren belirli uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fc i\u00e7in kurulmu\u015f \u00f6zel mahkemeler oldu\u011fundan, genel mahkeme olan Asliye Ticaret Mahkemesinin g\u00f6rev alan\u0131na giren i\u015flere de bakabilece\u011finden, davac\u0131 taraf\u0131n istinaf talebinin kabul\u00fc ile \u0130stanbul Anadolu 1. Fikr\u00ee ve S\u0131na\u00ee Haklar Hukuk Mahkemesi’nin g\u00f6revsizlik karar\u0131n\u0131n 6100 Say\u0131l\u0131 HMK’n\u0131n 353\/1-a\/3. maddesi gere\u011fince kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermek gerekmi\u015ftir.
H\u00dcK\u00dcM: Gerek\u00e7esi yukar\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131kland\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00fczere;1- Davac\u0131 vekilinin istinaf isteminin KABUL\u00dc ile, 2- \u0130stanbul Anadolu 1. Fikr\u00ee ve S\u0131na\u00ee Haklar Hukuk Mahkemesi’nin 26\/12\/2019 g\u00fcn ve 2015\/149 Esas, 2019\/359 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n, 6100 Say\u0131l\u0131 HMK’n\u0131n 353\/1-a\/3. maddesi gere\u011fince KALDIRILMASINA,3- Dosyan\u0131n, yukar\u0131da g\u00f6sterilen bi\u00e7imde inceleme ve de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere mahkemesine G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE, 4- \u0130stinaf yasa yoluna ba\u015fvuran davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan pe\u015fin olarak yat\u0131r\u0131lan 59,30 TL maktu istinaf karar ve ilam harc\u0131n\u0131n talebi halinde kendisine \u0130ADES\u0130NE,5- Dosya \u00fczerinde inceleme yap\u0131lmas\u0131 sebebiyle vekalet \u00fccreti takdirine YER OLMADI\u011eINA,6- \u0130stinaf yasa yoluna ba\u015fvuran davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan istinaf a\u015famas\u0131nda yap\u0131lan giderlerin ilk derece mahkemesince verilecek nihai kararda dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131na,6100 Say\u0131l\u0131 HMK’n\u0131n 353\/1-a\/3 maddesi gere\u011fince dosya \u00fczerinde yap\u0131lan inceleme sonucunda ve KES\u0130N olmak \u00fczere, oy birli\u011fiyle karar verildi. 20\/05\/2021<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T.C. \u0130STANBUL B\u00d6LGE ADL\u0130YE MAHKEMES\u0130 44. HUKUK DA\u0130RES\u0130 T \u00dc R K M \u0130 L L E T \u0130 A…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[75,63,69],"tags":[49,48,45,43,56],"class_list":{"0":"post-1724","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-kisiler-hukuku","7":"category-miras-hukuku","8":"category-tazminat-hukuku","9":"tag-afyon","10":"tag-afyonavukat","11":"tag-avukat","12":"tag-menfi-tespit","13":"tag-tazminatavukati"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.tepekaya.av.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1724","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.tepekaya.av.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.tepekaya.av.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.tepekaya.av.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.tepekaya.av.tr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1724"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.tepekaya.av.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1724\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1725,"href":"https:\/\/www.tepekaya.av.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1724\/revisions\/1725"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.tepekaya.av.tr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1724"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.tepekaya.av.tr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1724"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.tepekaya.av.tr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1724"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}