TurkAegean: Is it abusive to argue trademark invalidity on absolute grounds?

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

TurkAegean: Is it abusive to argue trademark invalidity on absolute grounds?

Sponsored by

patrinos-logo.png
Greek flag over the sea

Manolis Metaxakis of Patrinos & Kilimiris Law Offices considers the implications of the EUIPO ruling in favour of the Hellenic Republic concerning the validity of the ‘TurkAegean’ trademark

The Turkish Tourism Promotion and Development Agency has applied before the EUIPO for the trademark ‘TurkAegean’ to designate tourism-related services. This trademark was initially accepted for registration by the EUIPO. However, the registrability of the mark was the subject of intense debate due to various absolute grounds under the EU Trademark Regulation (EUTMR) regime.

This was confirmed by decision C 58 927 of the EUIPO’s Cancellation Division of January 10 2025; under which, the application for a declaration of invalidity filed by the Hellenic Republic was upheld. It was particularly held that the trademark ‘TurkAegean’ was non-distinctive and descriptive, and, thus, invalid.

The EUIPO’s Cancellation Division was also called upon to rule on a preliminary issue; namely, whether filing an application for a declaration of invalidity could be regarded as an abuse of right. In this respect, it was held that unlike relative grounds, which protect a third party’s interests, absolute grounds are aimed at protecting general interests. It follows that the potential or actual economic interest pursued by the applicant for a declaration of invalidity is not of relevance and, consequently, there can be no question of an ‘abuse of rights’ while filing a declaration of invalidity of that type.

One must take into account that this kind of objection should, as a matter of law, be examined first; that is to say, before the deciding body gets into the substance of the case. The risk is obvious: a trademark that is actually invalid on absolute grounds may nevertheless survive because its registrability is linked with a third party’s potential or actual economic interests.

The above-mentioned ruling is well established. In fact, any approach to the contrary is not favoured by established EU case law. The purpose of the administrative procedure laid down in the EUTMR is, inter alia, to enable the EUIPO to review the validity of the registration of a trademark and to adopt, where necessary, a position that it should have adopted of its own motion (C-622/13, Section 42; C-450/13, Section 40).

In essence, this is about the fundamental principle of legality. All decisions concerning the registration of a sign as an EU trademark, which the EUIPO is called on to take under the EUTMR, are adopted in the exercise of circumscribed power and are not a matter of discretion (C-37/03, Section 47).

In plain words, there can be no immunity for a trademark that is actually invalid on absolute grounds. Legal certainty prevails.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Tim Gilman, who joined Kasowitz alongside three other partners, says he is excited to be part of the firm’s ‘elite’ litigation team
A backlash against a White House video promoting deportation and Casalonga opening a new office in Düsseldorf were also among the top talking points
The firm has brought on board two counsel and an associate to complement two previously revealed partner hires
Bradford Newman, who has joined the firm’s new Silicon Valley office as head of complex technology disputes, discusses plans to build the practice group and attract local talent
Managing IP summarises the highlights from the IP STARS rankings for copyright and IP transactions work, the final firm rankings release of the year
Developments included the first judgment from the Nordic Baltic division, an injunction covering the UK, and a new code of conduct
Alston & Bird acted for InterDigital, while Samsung was represented by Fish & Richardson, during the arbitration process
Powell Gilbert lawyers reveal how they navigated parallel EPO proceedings and collaborated with European peers to come out on top in the Nordic-Baltic Division’s first judgment
The firms posted increases in revenue and profit per equity partner, with both giving a nod to their IP expertise
EasyGroup, the owner of the easyJet airline, said in a press release that UK-based first-instance judges are “less experienced”, bringing a long-running debate back to the fore
Gift this article