Turkey: What are the rules around the non-use defence in oppositions?

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: 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

The UK-India trade deal doesn’t mention legal services, showing India has again failed to agree on a move that could help foreign firms and local practitioners
Eva-Maria Strobel reveals some of the firm’s IP achievements and its approach to client relationships
Lateral hires at Thompson Hine and Pierson Ferdinand said they were inspired by fresh business opportunities and innovative strategies at their new firms
The launch of a new IP insurance product and INTA hiring a former USPTO commissioner were also among the top talking points this week
The firm explains how it secured a $170.6 million verdict against the government in a patent dispute surrounding airport technology, and why the case led to interest from other inventors
Developments of note included the court partially allowing a claim concerning confidentiality clubs and a decision involving technology used in football matches
The firm said adding capability in the French capital completes its coverage of all major patent litigation jurisdictions as it strives for UPC excellence
Marc Fenster explains how keeping the jury focused on the most relevant facts helped secure a $279m win for his client against Samsung
Clients are divided on what externally funded IP firms bring to the table, so those firms must prove why the benefits outweigh the downsides
Rahul Bhartiya, AI coordinator at the EUIPO, discusses the office’s strategy, collaboration with other IP offices, and getting rid of routine tasks
Gift this article