Turkish Court of Cassation’s stance on short-word trademarks: analysis

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

Turkish Court of Cassation’s stance on short-word trademarks: analysis

Sponsored by

gunpartners-400px.png
Turkish bridge.jpg

Mutlu Yıldırım Köse and İrem Girenes Yücesoy of Gün and Partners draw on recent cases to explain the court’s approach to short-word trademarks and consider the weight given to dominant elements

According to the Trademark Examination Guideline of the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office, which is aligned with the EUIPO guidelines, the comparison of trademarks should be based on the overall impression created by the marks. In this assessment, the length of a trademark can be an important factor. In general, the shorter a sign is, the easier it is for the public to perceive each of its elements. Conversely, in longer signs, differences are less likely to be noticed. That said, each case must be assessed individually, taking all relevant circumstances into account.

The Turkish Court of Cassation (CoC) follows the same general approach in its decisions. However, it can be observed that the CoC tends to place greater weight on the main elements of the trademarks, even when the marks are short. The court’s established position on short-word marks is that the focus should remain on the dominant element. As long as the main elements are identical or highly similar, the presence of additional elements is usually not sufficient to eliminate the likelihood of confusion.

For example, in its previous decision dated June 20 2023, with merit No. 2022/954 and decision No. 2023/3909, the CoC upheld the Regional Court’s decision, finding the trademarks listed below to be confusingly similar.

Gun 1.jpg

In the upheld decision, the Regional Court highlighted that the main element of the subject trademark is the phrase “SFA”, which differs by only a single letter from the trademark featuring the phrase “STFA” as its main element. The court concluded that, given the high similarity between the main elements of the disputed trademarks and the similarity of the goods and services covered by them, there exists a likelihood of confusion between these trademarks.

Likewise, consistent with its previous decisions, a CoC decision dated March 3 2025, with merit No. 2024/3305 and decision No. 2025/1446, upheld the Regional Court’s decision regarding the similarity of the below marks, which had rescinded the first-instance court’s decision.

Gun 2.jpg

In its decision, despite the first-instance court having found these trademarks dissimilar, the Regional Court carefully identified the primary and secondary elements of the disputed trademarks and concluded that the main elements of both trademarks are the phrase “MB”. Consequently, the court determined that the addition of the phrase “Holding”, which lacks distinctiveness, together with the stylisation of the phrase “MB”, was deemed insufficient to differentiate the above-left trademark from the trademark cited as the basis for refusal.

It is therefore essential to consider whether the additional elements added to short-word trademarks are descriptive, as well as the positioning of the short-word elements within the trademarks. Despite visual differences between the trademarks, the presence of the same main element was deemed sufficient to establish similarity and a likelihood of confusion.

Key takeaways on short-word trademarks

As can be observed from the relevant decisions and the CoC’s approach, in the assessment of similarity for short-word trademarks – even those consisting of just two letters – the main elements of the marks play a decisive role, whereas differences in secondary elements alone are not sufficient to differentiate the marks. While this approach has long been adopted in numerous disputes, each case has its own unique characteristics and different outcomes remain possible in individual disputes.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

A flurry of hiring activity among UK firms suggests they are confident of mounting a serious challenge at the UPC
With the submission deadline approaching, we sat down with our research team to provide top tips on how to make your firm stand out
EA, owner of video games including Madden and The Sims, will be sold to a consortium including Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund and a firm owned by Donald Trump’s son-in-law
New arrival marks Mewburn Ellis' second partner hire in ten days as firm looks to boost patent litigation and prosecution capabilities
In-house counsel and teams are invited to submit information for the 21st annual Managing IP Awards
The 2025 list of Rising Stars and Corporate Stars, produced by Managing IP’s accreditation title IP STARS, is now available
Eszter Szakács, partner at Danubia in Hungary, discusses women’s progression, workplace flexibility, and how to deal with imposter syndrome
Rob Fewery is a solicitor at Allwyn Entertainment in the UK
Piotr Rafalski is a patent attorney at Qemetica in Poland
Joanna Rodrigues is an IP lawyer at Dassault Systèmes in France
Gift this article