Long-awaited regulation on non-use cancellation actions of the trademarks published

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

Cookies Settings

Long-awaited regulation on non-use cancellation actions of the trademarks published

Sponsored by

26Moroğlu Arseven.png

Moroğlu Arseven talk about the long-awaited regulation on non-use cancellation actions of the trademarks published

The long-anticipated amendments to the Regulation on the Implementation of the Industrial Property Law (“the Regulation”), addressing non-use cancelation action proceedings, were published in the Official Gazette on March 15, 2025, and numbered 32842 and have entered into force. These amendments provide much-needed clarity on non-use cancellation actions, a crucial tool for clearing unused trademarks from the registry.

Background

The Industrial Property Law No. 6769 (“the Law”), enacted in 2017, transferred the authority for non-use cancelation from the courts to the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (“TPTO”) as of January 10, 2024. This reform was widely welcomed by the IP community as it aimed to make cancellation processes faster and more efficient.

While the TPTO began accepting non-use cancellation filings in mid-2024, the absence of detailed procedures caused delays. The amendment of the Regulation now establishes a clear framework for handling these requests.

Key Highlights of the Amendment of the Regulation

1. Filing Process:

  • Non-use cancellation requests must be submitted to the TPTO using a signed form, specifying:

    - Trademark registration number.

    - Goods/services in question.

    - If cancellation is sought as of a specific date, this date must also be specified.

  • Proof of payment of the cancellation fee is required for processing the request.

  • A separate request must be filed for each trademark registration.

2. Proof of Use:

  • Trademark owners must demonstrate genuine and serious use of their trademark in Türkiye for the goods/services subject to the request.

  • Use initiated within three months before the request will be disregarded, if deemed an attempt to avoid cancellation.

3. Deadlines and Responses:

  • If deficiencies in the non-use request are not corrected within one month, the application will be rejected.

  • The TPTO grants a one-month period to trademark owners to respond to cancellation requests, with an optional one-month extension.

  • The TPTO may request additional evidence and information from both parties, with a one-month deadline for responses. If no response is provided, the application will proceed based on the available evidence.

4. Cancellation Fee:

  • The cancellation fee consists of a fee of the TPTO and an escrow fee.

  • Escrow fee is paid to the winning party, if it is asked from the TPTO within ten years as of finalization of the cancelation decision.

5. Withdrawal of Requests:

  • Cancellation requests can be withdrawn before the TPTO issues a decision.

  • Refunds for the escrowed portion of the fee are available upon withdrawal.

What’s Next?

Although the TPTO began accepting non-use cancellation filings in mid-2024, it has not yet started examining these requests. With the new Regulation in place, as of May 2025 the TPTO started notifying trademark owners whose trademarks are challenged with non-use cancellation actions. The TPTO is expected to begin processing applications soon.

This development is a major step toward streamlining the cancellation process, ensuring that unused trademarks no longer block the registry. While the Regulation addresses many procedural uncertainties, additional updates or guidelines are expected to emerge as the TPTO gains experience in implementing the framework.

The amendments mark a significant turning point for IP rights holders, providing clearer procedures and fostering more efficient resolutions for non-use cancellation cases. The text of the amendments to the regulation, which is available only in Turkish can be accessed via the following link.

Author: Ece Berkman - Partner

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

On a recent trip to the French capital, we learned that the UPC is squeezing domestic litigation while firms are chasing senior talent, experimenting with AI and considering new ways of organising their practices
Daniel Law says a string of lateral hires and broader expansion plans will strengthen its position to capitalise on Brazil’s burgeoning IP and patent litigation market
Jason Raeburn’s arrival will expand the firm’s London footprint in AI, copyright and tech disputes
The firm is shaping its AI strategy around partnerships with Harvey and Legora alongside internally developed tools from its legal technology company, Eltemate
A dispute Down Under shows why trademark lawyers cannot afford to wait on the sidelines when a rival brand gathers momentum
The Third Circuit’s decision in Thomson Reuters v ROSS marks the first appellate-level decision addressing AI and fair use, prompting copyright counsel to consider arguments around potential licensing markets
Injunctions for HandsFree Labs and Align Technology come as the Court of Appeal warns that busy teams must have the staffing and resources to meet UPC deadlines
The chief technology officer remit, which has been created as the firm is building its litigation team, will include expanding the use of AI in patent and legal work and automating manual processes
Former Hoyng Rokh Moneiger partner Laura Alonso, who brought her team to ECIJA in March, discusses plans to expand further and why ECIJA’s ‘IP DNA’ is helping broaden her work
Amita Haylock discusses building an integrated Asia practice as clients increasingly demand that firms combine IP, technology and data expertise
Gift this article