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 2026

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

Cassie Hill, partner at Mishcon de Reya, discusses rebuilding client relationships after maternity leave and the pressures facing women at a pivotal stage of their career
Matthew Asbell discusses why empathy is important in law, being inspired by diverse workplaces and working on the latest, greatest large language model
The new partners add patent trial depth in high-value technology sectors including semiconductors, software, and cloud computing
From seller vetting and proprietary screening technology to brand collaboration and industry partnerships, Temu explains how its intellectual property enforcement programme combats infringement on its marketplace
A handful of US firms have quietly invested in European patent talent. Recent moves by Baker Botts and K&L Gates suggest that trend may be accelerating
Loke Khoon Tan and Stephanie Yip at Dentons explain what brand owners need to know ahead of January 1 2027, when updates to China’s Trade Mark Law come into force
New US bills signal that firms should work with clients to ensure they are complying with potential regulatory requirements
Octavio Espejo of Becerril, Coca & Becerril explains how sweeping patent reforms reshape filing strategies, prosecution, and divisional application practice
The UK Supreme Court’s decision in Tesla v Avanci enhances the UK's attractiveness for global FRAND battles, say lawyers at Simmons & Simmons
PE-backed practices now comprise the majority of ranked firms for patent prosecution in the Netherlands, but competitors are confident about their decision to remain independent
Gift this article