Before the Industrial Property Law (“IP Code”) no. 6769 entered into force on January 10, 2017, procedures related to trademark rights were governed by the former Decree Law no. 556 on the Protection of Trademarks (“Decree Law”). While revocation of trademarks is dealt with by both pieces of legislation, the introduction of the IPL brings a major change to Turkish Trademark Law, stating that requests for revocation of trademarks must be filed with the Turkish Patent and…
»
It is widely accepted in the literature[1] and decisions of the Court of Cassation[2] (“CoC”) that an applicant's attempt to create a trademark portfolio by trying to register other well-known trademarks can be sufficient to constitute proof of bad faith. In this context, first instance courts and regional courts of appeals will examine the applicant's other trademark applications and might accept that the registration of the disputed trademark was attempted in bad faith…
»
Administrative revocation will be possible before the Office as of 10 January 2024.
According to Article 9 of the Industrial Property Law No. 6769 (“IPL”), if a trademark is not used in five years as of its registration date or its use is suspended for a consecutive period of five years; it will be vulnerable to revocation due to non-use.
Revocation of trademarks based on non-use were traditionally filed as a court action before the specialized IP courts under the previous…
»
Overview
On 14 September 2022, TRABIS (‘.tr’ Network Information System) took over the management of ‘.tr’ extended domain names with the Regulation coming into force in Türkiye.
According to the Regulation, domain names can be allocated as documented or undocumented. Undocumented allocation is carried out within the framework of the ‘first come, first served’ rule. This rule is applied to domain names with the most commonly used extensions such as ‘.com.tr’, ‘.org.tr’…
»
There are questions concerning whether a trade name or business name can constitute trademark infringement and unfair competition, particularly in cases where the trade name is not used as a trademark. This criticism has been disputed under both the Decree Law No. 556 Pertaining to Protection of Trademarks and the Industrial Property Code (“IP Code”)[1]. The Courts has made numerous decisions regarding this topic.
The issue was discussed in the decision dated 08 February…
»
In recent legal debates, the patentability of AI-generated inventions has been contentious. Historically, only humans have been considered inventors, anchored in notions of personhood and intellect. Yet, in a bold move, South Africa and Australia’s Federal Court recognized AI, specifically DABUS, as a potential inventor in 2021, defying conventional views. Proponents argue that this accommodates modern innovation trends, while sceptics raise concerns about ownership rights…
»
Article 26 of the Industrial Property Code, which grants the PTO the authority to revoke trademarks, will come into force on 10 January 2024
The PTO has recently released a draft regulation for comment
The draft regulation includes procedural details on how revocation requests will be made before the PTO
Background
The Industrial Property Code No 6769 (IP Code), which entered into force on 10 January 2017, provides that the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has…
»
This article discusses the alternative dispute resolution mechanism for ".tr" domain names in Türkiye. It highlights the efficiency of the alternative dispute resolution mechanism and addresses some concerns over the transparency of proceedings.
TRABIS (".tr" Network Information System), established by the Turkish Information and Communication Technologies Authority ("BTK"), became operational on September 14, 2022 and undertook the management of ".tr" domain names. Upon…
»
During 2022, the 11th Civil Chamber of the Turkish Court of Cassation (the CoC) issued several decisions regarding trade marks covering goods in class 5. The CoC formed its evaluation on the likelihood of confusion by comparing the subclasses of class 5. The details of the decisions are provided below:
Aster v Paster
A cancellation action was filed against the Office’s decision rejecting the opposition filed against the trade mark PASTER in class 5 relying upon the…
»
The Trademarks Department granted broader protection to the well-known SINGER mark, refusing an application including the term ‘Singer’ in Class 1
The decision examined the conditions for dilution of a well-known mark under Article 6/5 of the IP Code
The well-known status of the SINGER mark, as well as the word and graphic elements in the application, played a role in deciding on the applicant’s bad faith
The Trademarks Department has decided that the application for…
»
According to Article 6/6 of the Turkish Industrial Property Code, “An application for registration of a trademark shall be refused upon the opposition of the right holder if it consists of a person’s name, trade name, photography, copyright or any other intellectual property right of another.” Based on this provision, it is possible to oppose an application relying upon the opponent’s other intellectual property rights ownership.
On December 20 2022, the Re-Examination and…
»
A company based in the US opposed an application for goods and services in Classes 25 and 35 based on an earlier mark in Classes 9, 35 and 41
The PTO found that the physical goods/services covered by the application were similar to the virtual and online goods/services covered by the opponent’s mark
The similarity of virtual and physical goods/services has recently been a hot topic across the world
In a decision issued on 31 March 2023 (which was subsequently finalised)…
»
