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

The move marks the latest step in Temu’s push to protect brands’ intellectual property by collaborating with industry groups and enforcement agencies. Managing IP learns about a rapidly scaling strategy and two success stories
A counterfeiting crackdown targeting fake FIFA World Cup merchandise and new partner hires by CMS, HGF and Winston Strawn were also among the top talking points
Law firms need to accept the hard truth: talent migration isn't personal; it's business as usual
Judge Alan Albright is to leave his role at the Western District of Texas, and could return to private practice
Stobbs has successfully seen off a contempt of court application filed against the firm and two of its lawyers
After almost a quarter of a century, Marshall Gerstein has a new managing partner
Abbott winning another round against Sinocare and Menarini, and 'long arm' clarification on the UK's position within the UPC, were also among major developments
Maria Peyman, head of IP at Birketts, explains why the firm is adopting a ‘seamless approach’ for clients by integrating two of its practice areas
Matthew Swinn, who leads the firm’s IP practice, discusses why Mallesons is well-placed to remain a major IP force
Lawyers at A&O Shearman analyse developments regarding UPC’s long-arm jurisdiction, including its scope and jurisdictional limits
Gift this article