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

Attorneys explain why there are early signs that the US Supreme Court could rule in favour of ISP Cox in a copyright dispute
A swathe of UPC-related hires suggests firms are taking the forum seriously, as questions over the transitional stage begin
A win for Nintendo in China and King & Spalding hiring a prominent patent litigator were also among the top talking points
Rebecca Newman at Addleshaw Goddard, who live-reported on the seminal dispute, unpicks the trials and tribulations of the case and considers its impact
Attorneys predict how Lululemon’s trade dress and design patent suit against Costco could play out
Lawyers at Linklaters analyse some of the key UPC trends so far, and look ahead to life beyond the transition period
David Rodrigues, who previously worked at an IP boutique, said he may become more involved in transactional work at his new firm
Indian smartphone maker Lava must pay $2.3 million as a security deposit for past sales, as its dispute with Dolby over audio coding SEPs plays out
Powell Gilbert’s opening in Düsseldorf, complete with a new partner hire, continues this summer’s trend of UPC-related lateral movement
IP leaders at Brandsmiths and Bird & Bird, who were on opposing sides at the UK Supreme Court in Iconix v Dream Pairs, unpick the landmark case and its ramifications
Gift this article