Turkey: What are the rules around the non-use defence in oppositions?

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Turkey: What are the rules around the non-use defence in oppositions?

The new IP Code came into force on January 10 2017 in Turkey. One of the major changes in the new IP Code is a non-use defence in opposition proceedings.

According to the IP Code, if the ground trade mark was registered more than five years from the application date (or priority date) of the opposed trade mark application, upon request by the owner of the trade mark application, the Office is obliged to ask the opponent to prove effective use of the ground trade mark(s) on the relevant goods and/or services in Turkey.

The Office prepared Proof of Use Guidelines and published them on April 28 2017. In relation to these, the Office stated that the effective use of ground trade marks can be proved with, in particular, invoices, price lists, catalogues, product codes, products, packaging, signboard visuals, advertisements, promotions and their invoices, marketing surveys, opinion research, information about commercial activity and any additional documents/statements regarding Turkey. Furthermore, the submitted evidence must contain sufficient information on the nature, location, time, scope and use of the trade mark in relation to the goods and services within its scope of registration.

In a recent decision, an opposition filed against a trade mark application covering goods in Class 9 relying on a trade mark which was registered for more than five years for goods in Classes 7 and 9 was rejected by the Office. The Office stated that "on the submitted invoices it was written 'disassembled cereal dressing machines' and the components and parts of these machines are listed under this explanation. Since the goods were intended to form parts of another product in principle classified in the same class as that product only in cases where the same type of goods cannot normally be used for another purpose, the parts and components mentioned in the invoices should be considered in class 7. Considering the goods in class 7 and 9 are not the same or similar, the opposition should be rejected."

Although the policy around evaluation of submitted evidence has not been sufficiently established yet, it seems that the most important documents for proving use of a trade mark will particularly be invoices. Moreover, if the opponents fail to prove use of their trade mark or the evidence submitted is unrelated to the relevant goods, and if there are not any other claims i.e. a well-known status argument, the Office will refuse the oppositions.

kose

Mutlu Yıldırım Köse


Gün + PartnersKore Şehitleri Cad. 17Zincirlikuyu 34394İstanbul, TurkeyTel: + (90) (212) 354 00 00Fax: + (90) (212) 274 20 95gun@gun.av.trgun.av.tr

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Leaders at US law firms explain what attorneys can learn from AI cases involving Meta and Anthropic, and why the outcomes could guide litigation strategies
Attorneys reveal the trademark and copyright trends they’ve noticed within the first half of 2025
Senior leaders at TE Connectivity and Clarivate explain how they see the future of innovation
A new action filed by Nokia against Asus and a landmark ruling on counterfeits by South Africa’s Supreme Court were also among the top talking points
Counsel explain how they’re navigating patent prosecution matters and highlight key takeaways from Federal Circuit cases
A partner who joined Fenwick alongside two others explains what drew her to the firm and her hopes for growth in Boston
The England and Wales High Court has granted Kirkland & Ellis client Samsung interim declaratory relief in its ongoing FRAND dispute with ZTE
A UDRP decision that found in favour of a small business in a domain name dispute could encourage more businesses to take a stand in ‘David v Goliath’ cases
In Iconix v Dream Pairs, the Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal was wrong to interfere with an earlier ruling, prompting questions about the appeal court’s remit
Chris Moore at HGF reflects on the ‘spirit of collegiality’ that led to an important ruling in G1/24, a case concerning how European patent claims should be interpreted
Gift this article