Turkey: Patent and Trademark Office publishes New Trademark Examination Guideline

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

Cookies Settings

Turkey: Patent and Trademark Office publishes New Trademark Examination Guideline

The Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (the office) published the New Trademark Examination Guideline (guideline) on September 30 2019. The guideline defines the criteria for the examination of trademark applications on absolute grounds within the scope of the Industrial Property Code (IP Code) that came into force in 2017.

The guideline aims to update the previous guideline which was in force from 2011, clarify the principles of absolute grounds for refusal that are explained in the IP Code and provide consistency in office decisions.

The guideline consists of 379 pages and includes a great number of examples encompassing the decisions of the office and the courts, as well as recent developments in the EU. In particular, Article 5/1(c) regarding descriptiveness and Article 5/1(ç) regarding indistinguishable similarity to a senior trademark or trademark application are discussed in detail, providing various examples.

The key points of the guideline can be summarised as follows:

  • Since graphical representation is not required, it is enough to upload videos and voice recordings for applications for sound marks. For colour mark applications, the section for the colour example must be filled out fully and the "Pantone" colour code must be indicated.

  • When evaluating the trademark applications for "distinctiveness" and "descriptiveness", i) the trademark to be registered should be evaluated together with the goods and services that are the subject of the application; ii) the application should be evaluated as a whole; iii) the perception of the target consumers should be taken into consideration.

  • While the ex officio similarity evaluation is conducted by the office for the same or indistinguishable trademarks i) if there are two composite marks under evaluation, the overall impression that the marks leave should be taken into consideration, ii) if there is one composite and one non-composite mark under evaluation, the evaluation should be made upon the distinctive elements, iii) the distinctiveness level of the trademarks such as low-middle-high should be taken into consideration while the protection scope is determined.

The office, in its announcement, stated that this is a living document and should be updated occasionally according to changes in practice and evaluation. We believe that this detailed work will clarify the principles of absolute grounds for refusal and provide consistency in the office's decisions.

kose-mutlu-yildirim.jpg

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

Our latest podcast examines how Weil’s IP practice evolved, where its practitioners could (and will) go next, and which firms and markets stand to benefit from the redistribution of talent
Former Latham partner Chris Henry and transactions lawyer Liza Cotter are heading to the firm as Weil’s IP practice starts to disperse
Rival IP teams return to court for a closely watched appeal over AI and copyright, but observers hoping for answers to some of the technology’s biggest legal questions may be left disappointed
Eight years after its launch, members of the Australian patent firm’s Singapore office explain its growth strategy over the past year
Lawyers at Bowmans Kenya discuss the digital blind spots posed by the transition from physical ledgers to cloud databases and digital co-development models
The Powell Gilbert co-founder discusses the confidence required to launch a firm, building an enduring patent litigation practice and why developing the next generation has changed her measure of success
Cabinet M Oproiu’s Raluca Vasilescu explains why AI is changing what clients expect from patent attorneys, where the technology is overhyped and what the next generation will need to do differently
As clients demand more flexible fees and AI-driven efficiencies, IP firms are rethinking pricing without abandoning the value of their work
HG Law was formed largely by ex Fish & Neave lawyers who left after the latter's merger with Ropes & Gray; now those experiences are shaping its latest combination
David Rodrigues and Evan Lazerowitz – attorneys at Robinson & Cole – offer practical guidance on the steps a business might consider to preserve and maximise IP value before entering financial distress or insolvency
Gift this article