Turkey: Trade mark prosecution and opposition under the new IP Code

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

Turkey: Trade mark prosecution and opposition under the new IP Code

The New Turkish Industrial Property Code entered into force on January 10 2017. The IP Code replaces the Decree-laws pertaining to the protection of trade marks, patents, geographical indications and designs by unifying them into a single code.

Among other reforms, the trade mark chapter includes changes relating to prosecution and opposition procedures for trade marks. These are now in greater compliance with the relevant European Union directives.

First, the graphical representation criteria for signs to be registered as a trade mark has changed to "signs capable of being represented on the register in a manner which enables the competent authorities and the public to determine the clear and precise subject matter of the protection afforded to its proprietor". Further, "colours" and "sounds" have been explicitly stated under "signs" that can be registered as a "trade mark" for the first time. In addition, it has been explicitly stated that the signs that are not distinctive and which include geographical indications cannot be registered. Those were already accepted under the former legislation through interpretation but now they are clearly mentioned in the IP Code.

One of the major changes in trade mark prosecution is that the IP Code introduces the principle of co-existence into Turkish trade mark law. Accordingly, letters of consent from the senior trade mark/trade mark application owners will be acceptable in overcoming the citations of earlier senior identical or indistinguishably similar trade marks by the Turkish Patent and Trade Mark Office as an ex officio refusal ground.

The IP Code includes major changes relating to the opposition proceedings as well. First, the term for opposition for trade marks has been shortened to two months from three months. Further, during the opposition proceedings before the Office opponents will have to prove genuine use or produce justified reasons for non-use of their trade marks within the last five years that they cite as grounds for the opposition, if so requested by the applicant. Accordingly, if the opponent cannot prove genuine use or produce justified reasons for non-use, the opposition will be rejected.

There are also changes relating to opposition grounds. The protection of well-known trade marks in the meaning of Paris Convention, which was recently cancelled by the Constitutional Court, has been re-introduced as a relative opposition ground.

Finally, it is worth noting that for trade mark applications that were filed before January 10 2017, the former legislation, namely the Trademark Decree-Law, will still apply until their registration processes complete.

Uğur Aktekin

Mutlu Yıldırım Köse

Gün + Partners

Kore Şehitleri Cad. 17

Zincirlikuyu 34394

İstanbul, Turkey

Tel: + (90) (212) 354 00 00

Fax: + (90) (212) 274 20 95

gun@gun.av.tr

gun.av.tr

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Leaders at the newly merged firm Jones Maxwell Smith & Davis reveal their plan to take on bigger firms while attracting more clients and talent
Charles Achkar, who will bring a team of two with him, said he was excited about joining ‘one of the few strong IP boutiques’
Andy Lee, head of IP at Brandsmiths and winner of the Soft IP Practitioner of the Year award, tells us why 2024 was a seminal year and why clients value brave advice
The deal to acquire MIP's parent company is expected to complete by the end of May 2025
Jinwon Chun discusses the need for vigilance, his love for iced coffee, and preparing for INTA
Karl Barnfather’s new patent practice will focus on protecting and enforcing tech innovations in the electronics, AI, and software industries
Partner Ranjini Acharya explains how her Federal Circuit debut resulted in her convincing the court to rule that machine learning technology was not patent-eligible
Paul Hastings and Smart & Biggar also won multiple awards, while Baker McKenzie picked up a significant prize
Burford Capital study finds that in-house lawyers have become more likely to monetise patents, but that their IP portfolios are still underutilised
Robert Reading and Faidon Zisis at Clarivate unpick some of the data surrounding music-related trademarks
Gift this article