Employing a trademark as a domain name is not genuine use
Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

Employing a trademark as a domain name is not genuine use

Sponsored by

gunpartners-400px.png
Web link background. Search window in browser

The first instance Civil Court for Intellectual and Industrial Rights (IP court) in its decision rendered in October 2020 pointed out that the use of the subject mark as a domain name solely is not deemed sufficient to prove the use of the mark as a trademark.

The decision concerns a revocation action due to non-use filed against a trademark which has been registered for more than five years, but has not been used properly and effectively on the relevant services within the scope of its registration in Turkey by the trademark owner.

In revocation actions based on non-use, the defendant carries the burden of proof, and the IP courts generally obtain expert reports from court-appointed experts for examination of the evidence and commercial books of the defendants.

In the relevant case file, the defendant party submitted evidence regarding the records of the domain name including the subject trademark and the content of the website operated under this domain name, in which the subject trademark has not been used as it is registered, but used in a very different form from its registration.

The file was examined by the court-appointed experts, and they concluded that there is no evidence proving the use of the trademark as it is registered on the relevant services in the commercial records of the defendant and also on their website. However, in view of the existence of the domain name consisting of the subject trademark which has been in use for five years, it is sufficient to prove the use of the trademark. However, the IP court, disregarding the determinations in the expert report, highlighted the importance of the requirement of use of the trademark on the goods and services within the scope of its registration for commercial purposes, found the existence of the domain name alone insufficient and decided to revoke the subject trademark due to non-use.

In the recent decisions of the Court of Appeals, it is also clear that use of a trademark as a domain name solely is not accepted as sufficient to prove the genuine and serious use of a trademark, if there is no other commercial use of the trademark on the goods and services within the scope of its registration under this domain name.

In this respect, this decision along with the recent decisions of the Court of Appeals sets a precedent for future disputes and concludes that use of trademark as a domain name by itself is insufficient to prove genuine use.






more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Michelle Lue-Reid has joined the IP business as its chief transformation officer and will look to implement major change initiatives across member firms
Chad Landmon, who joins in Washington DC, hopes to expand the firm’s Hatch-Waxman practice
The FRAND rate is only 5 cents higher than the per-device rate determined at first instance in 2023
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Nearly four months after joining Crowell & Moring, Edward Taelman reflects on starting afresh, new clients, and firm culture
Firms discuss the ebb and flow of life sciences IP work and explain how they help professionals pivot between specialities
Mercedes-Benz, Dolby Laboratories, and Panasonic discuss the merits and drawbacks of the USPTO's terminal disclaimer proposal
In-house counsel believe Chinese domestic firms are becoming as sophisticated as international firms, but they may not shift their portfolios just yet
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is looking to renew a ban that has prevented Judge Pauline Newman from hearing cases
The list of the top representative firms at the UPC may yield few surprises but their success did not come free
Gift this article