Insights

We share our knowledge and expertise to update our community and clients about legal developments in Turkey.





District Court Confirms Regulatory Data Protection is an IP Right

Regulatory data protection has been a contentious issue since it was introduced into Turkish law via the Ministry of Health Licensing Regulation. The most problematic areas are: the implementation of regulatory data protection as market exclusivity, despite contradictory wording in the Licensing Regulation; and limiting the regulatory data protection right to within the patent term. When this issue comes before IP courts in cases of unfair use of data by third parties… »

Well-known Trade Marks in Turkish Legal Practice: Scope of Protection

I. Introduction The scope of protection of well-known trade marks has been important yet controversial in Turkey, both in the period before the adoption of the Decree Law No. 556 Pertaining to the Protection of Trade marks of 24.06.1995 (‘Decree Law No. 556’) and with the Industrial Property Act No. 6769 (‘the IP Act’) adopted by the Turkish Parliament, published in the Official Gazette and entered into force on 19 January 2017.2 The definition of well-known trade marks… »

Istanbul IP Court Rejects PI Demand due to Pending Invalidation Action

One of the two IP courts of Istanbul rejected a crucial precautionary injunction (PI) demand of a owner on the ground that the demand requires a full trial due to the pending invalidation action against the relevant patent. The patent subject of the PI demand is disclosing use of an active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) for the treatment of certain conditions of a disease. As per the summaries of product characteristics (SmPCs) of the defendant’s drug, the infringement of… »

Key Developments and Predictions for Trademark Law in Turkey

Articles -

The Industrial Property Code No. 6769 (“the IP Code”) which came into force on 10 January 2017 has been widely welcomed by brand owners as their rights have now been sealed through the introduction of this new Code. The primary reason for the enactment of the new Code was the cancellation of various articles of the former Decree-laws on IP rights by the Constitutional Court on the grounds of Article 91 of the Constitution, which prohibits regulation of the property rights by… »

SARAY POPPY Decision: a New Approach to Likelihood of Confusion and Vested Rights?

On October 25 2017 the Turkish Court of Appeal upheld a decision of the Civil IP Court in which the latter had assessed the similarity between two trademarks by taking into account generic words that would not normally be considered in the examination of the likelihood of confusion. The decision also deals with the hot topic of how, and under which conditions, an earlier trademark provides vested rights to its owner. An application was filed for the registration of the mark… »

Court of Appeal: ‘Stick’ and ‘Stix’ are Distinctive for Class 30 Goods

Owner of STICK and STIX marks opposed registration of figurative mark and design containing ‘sticks’ IP Courts found no likelihood of confusion and that ‘stick’ is descriptive Court of Appeal disagreed in somewhat unusual decision In two recent decisions (Merit No 2016/2525, Decision No 2017/4913, dated October 2 2017; and Merit No 2016/2484, Decision No 2017/4777, dated September 27 2017), the 11th Chamber of the Court of Appeal has dismissed decisions of the first… »

Letters of Consent Under the Turkish Industrial Property Code

Unlike many countries, Turkish trade mark law has had a rule since 1995 that a senior tradegistration or application identical or indistinguishably similar to a junior trade mark application can be raised as an absolute ground for refusal if the goods/services are also identical or of the same type. The Turkish Industrial Property Code (the IP Code), which entered into force on January 10 2017, softened this rule, and in cases where an applicant submits anotarised document to… »

Invalidity Attack Blocks Precautionary Injunction Demand

The Istanbul IP Court recently rejected a crucial precautionary injunction demand of a patent owner on the grounds that the demand required a full trial due to the pending invalidation action against the patent. The patent discloses the use of an active pharmaceutical ingredient for treating the conditions of a disease. In light of the drug’s summary of product characteristics, the literal infringement of the patent was inevitable and obvious. The main defence held that the… »

Patent Use and Compulsory Licences

New IP law abolished the provisions concerning the use requirement of patents and evidence on ailed in the Decree Law on the Protection of Patent Rights. Instead, IP law now mentions the use requirement within the provision on compulsory licences, as a consequence of non-use of a patent. Accordingly, a patent owner must use the patented invention. When assessing the use, market conditions and conditions under the control of the patent owner, as well as outside their control… »

Analysing Turkey’s Evolving Trade Mark Landscape

It has now been over a year since the entry into force of the long-awaited Industrial Property Code (the IP Code) in January 2017. While the IP Code replaced the decree-laws pertaining to the protection of trade marks, patents, geographical indications and industrial designs, by uniting them into a single code, it also introduced new provisions. This article aims to summarise the new provisions in general and analyse the issues surrounding the implementation of the major new… »

Use Requirements, Evidence of Use and Compulsory Licences

The new Industrial Property Law entered into force on January 10 2017. It repealed and replaced decree-laws pertaining, among other things, to the protection of patent rights. Decree-laws Before the new law, decree-laws had set out clear provisions regarding use requirements, whereby patentees were obliged to use their patents within three years of its publication in the relevant bulletin. They had also set out clear provisions regarding evidence of use, whereby patentees… »