Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

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

Dilemma over well-known trademark registry continues in Turkey

Sponsored by


Uğur Aktekin and Begüm Soydan Sayılkan of Gün and Partners discuss developments regarding well-known trademarks since the Court of Cassation’s decision in February 2020

We have previously reported on the Turkish Court of Cassation’s decision concluding that the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (the office) has no authority to create and maintain a registry for well-known trademarks and discussed the possible repercussions of this decision for trademark owners.

In this article we will examine how practice has been shaped in the light of this decision, offer tips for brand owners during this interim period and predict what to expect in future.

The Turkish Court of Cassation’s decision (No. 2019/2980 E-2020/991 K dated February 5 2020) had been finalised without the review of the General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, which could unify the jurisprudence in the event of resistance against the decision. But the court of first instance did not resist in its decision. The plaintiff appealed the decision of the first instance court but since the same chamber of the Court of Cassation examined it, the appeal was dismissed. Therefore the decision of the court of first instance rendered in accordance with the Court of Cassation’s decision has become final.

Developments since the decision

Following the decision of the Court of Cassation, we have observed that in practice the first instance IP courts and regional courts of appeals have adopted the decision of the Court of Cassation and given dismissal decisions in pending court actions that are of the same nature.

Recent decisions of the courts that we have reviewed made reference to the decision of the Court of Cassation and the reasoning was the same: the office has no authority ordered by law to keep an official registry for recording well-known trademarks and there is no legal benefit in initiating a cancellation action against the office due to the rejection of an application to record trademarks as well-known, since the well-known status of a trademark should be proven in a given case where it is argued in accordance with established precedents.

However, the office has continued to maintain its registry for recording well-known trademarks, and has accepted, processed, and even recorded new trademarks on the well-known trademark registry. The office has also listed the official fee for filing for determination of the trademarks in its updated 2022 tariff, another indication that it will continue its practice.

The Court of Cassation’s decision is debatable as it does not provide satisfactory reasoning in making a change from its former precedents that shaped the practice for the last two decades. Indeed, the rules and regulations did not change in essence during this period. Further, a well-known trademark recordation does not prevent the courts from reviewing the well-known status of a trademark in each case and indeed the practice has been that way for many years. On the contrary, implementation has shown that a well-known trademark registry has practical benefits in the oppositions filed by trademark owners before the office.

Differences between courts and the office

At present, there is clearly a dilemma about the well-known trademark registry of the office since the courts and the office have a different interpretation and implementation. While the courts follow the decision of the Court of Cassation, the office has not made any change to its implementation.

Given that the office has not changed its practice, trademark owners may still consider filing a well-known status determination and recordation application if there is evidence and if consequently the chances seem good. However, if the application for a well-known trademark is rejected, there is no benefit in filing a court action against the decision of the office, unless the current precedents of the Court of Cassation change. 

Trademark owners that have a recordation of a well-known trademark by the office should closely monitor the implementation of the office in relation to oppositions and consider filing additional evidence proving the well-known status in cases where a well-known trademark record is relied upon. 

To our best knowledge as of the date of this article, there is no case before the General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, whose decision would be binding on the courts. Such a decision, if rendered, could urge the office to review its policy and implementation and perhaps lobby for a new regulation clearly authorising the office to record well-known trademarks.



Uğur Aktekin

Partner, Gün + Partners




Begüm Soydan Sayılkan

Senior associate, Gün + Partners



more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Counsel are eying domestic industry, concurrent PTAB proceedings and heightened scrutiny of cases before institution
Jack Daniel’s has a good chance of winning its dispute over dog toys, but SCOTUS will still want to protect free speech, predict sources
AI users and lawyers discuss why the rulebook for registering AI-generated content may create problems and needs further work
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
A technical effect must still be evident in the original patent filing, the EBoA said in its G2/21 decision today, March 23
Brands should not be deterred from pursuing lookalike producers, and an unfair advantage claim could be the key, say Emma Teichmann and Geoff Steward at Stobbs
Justice Mellor’s highly anticipated ruling surprised SEP owners and reassured implementers that the UK may not be so hostile after all
The England and Wales High Court's judgment comes ahead of a separate hearing concerning one of the patents-in-suit at the EPO
While the rules allow foreign firms to open local offices and offer IP services, a ban on litigation and practising Indian law could mean little will change
A New York federal court heard oral arguments this week in a copyright case pitting publishing giants against a digital library