Turkey: Letters of consent under the Turkish Industrial Property Code

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

Turkey: 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 trade mark registration 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 a notarised document to the Trademark Office indicating that the owner of the prior registration agrees to the registration of the trade mark application that is identical or indistinguishably similar to a senior trade mark or trade mark application, then the junior application cannot be rejected on this ground.

This provision has widely been considered as a positive development for applicants seeking registration for new trade marks, whose applications were rejected due to the existence of senior trade marks that were registered for a long time but not in use.

In practice, in some instances, where the owners of senior trade marks are serious and legitimate businesses, this new provision has helped and the letter of consent mechanism has worked well. However, some opportunistic senior trade mark owners have started to use this provision as a tool for asking for unreasonable amounts of money from the applicants for giving the letter of consent, even if they do not use the trade marks. The only alternative to putting pressure on the owners of unused trade marks is filing a revocation action due to non-use before the IP courts. However, this does not really answer the needs of businesses who want to obtain the trade mark registration in a smooth and quick way, since court actions are usually lengthy and expensive. The solution to this problem lies in the IP Code. Pursuant to Articles 26 and 192, the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (the office) will have the authority to process the application demanding revocation of trade marks due to non-use starting from January 2024.

We think that the positive effect of this new provision will be seen once the revocation demands due to non-use begin to be heard by the office. Until then, businesses may continue to have a hard time registering their trade marks due to unused trade marks blocking registration.

Uğur Aktekin

Pınar Arıkan


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

VO, which has offices in the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany, is the second European IP firm to secure external backing this week
The Bardehle Pagenberg attorneys-at-law discuss the firm’s Managing IP EMEA Awards 2026 success, Unified Patent Court litigation strategy, and evolving European patent trends
A patent battle between two legal tech companies and a loss for Elon Musk’s xAI against OpenAI were also among the top talking points
With drug prices a hot topic in the US, courts are seemingly more reluctant to prevent the entry of generics to the market
Academic Eden Sarid joins us during Pride Month to discuss queer expression and IP law, Patagonia v Pattie Gonia, and how queer and AI-generated creations both pose novelty concerns
Patent attorney Michael Henson joins the firm to lead its freshly launched blockchain and digital assets practice
A dispute over mammogram technology, and a development in the case between GSK and Moderna were also among the top talking points in recent weeks
With rankings for Western Europe set to be published on June 25, we sat down with our research lead to find out what practitioners and law firms can expect
Peter O’Sullivan, a professional services executive, says he is looking forward to helping Pearce IP become the leading life sciences firm in Australia and New Zealand
Matteo Di Lernia, advocate at LCA Studio Legale, unpicks the CJEU’s ruling in M.M. Ristorazione v Villa Ramazzini, including its impact on litigation strategies
Gift this article