Turkey: The Dilemma Of Co-Existence Of Trademarks Under Turkish Law

Last Updated: 17 September 2009
Article by Uğur Aktekin and Begüm Beyhan

Trademarks are defined as signs distinguishing the goods and services of one undertaking from the goods and services of the same kind or another undertaking. In this sense, "distinguishing certain goods and services of an undertaking from other goods and services of the same undertaking or other similar goods and services provided by other undertakings" is considered as the main function of trademark.

On the other hand, in the usual flow of the business life, since the signs that can be chosen as trademarks are limited, it is possible to see identical or confusingly similar trademarks used by companies doing business in the same industry coexists without any dispute. Even though it is sometimes observed that some of these trademarks, in particular confusingly similar ones, coexist as registered trademarks, it is generally not possible to register identical or even confusingly similar trademarks if there isn't any dispute between the holders of the trademarks under Turkish law. This implementation prevents registration of some of the trademarks that are used for a long period of time without the intervention of the proprietor of an identical or confusingly similar trademark and therefore, deprive them of the advantageous provisions of the Trademark Law.

Under the system of Decree Law No.556 Concerning the Protection of Trademarks, the mechanism for protection of distinctive character of trademarks is the "similarity" examination. The implementation of similarity examination differs from country to country. Where in some countries an examination is made under absolute grounds of refusal as well, others carry out a similarity examination only upon oppositions of trademark holders.

In Turkey, the initial examination on which signs can be registered as trademarks is made upon the filing of the trademark application by Turkish Patent Institute ("TPI") under the provisions of the Decree Law. The TPI bases this examination on two main grounds simply defined by the provisions of the Decree Law and the doctrine as "Absolute Grounds for Refusal" and "Relative Grounds for Refusal".

The refusal grounds defined as "Absolute Grounds for Refusal" are deemed to be concerning public policy, are set forth under art.7 of the Decree Law and the examination regarding these refusal grounds for refusal is considered by TPI ex officio during each stage including the application, publication and opposition stages. Similarly courts are also bound with the absolute grounds for refusal and have to make an ex officio examination during cases pending before them.

The examination concerning the relative grounds for refusal is set forth under art.8 of the Decree Law and it arises "upon an opposition by the proprietor of an application for registration of a trademark or of a registered trademark".

This article concerns the interpretation of the terms "trademarks identical or indistinguishably similar with a trademark registered earlier or with an earlier date of application for registration in respect of an identical or same type of product or services" set forth under absolute grounds for refusal under art.7/1(b) of the Decree Law in Turkish Law and problems caused by this interpretation in practice. The related article of the Decree Law is as follows:

"Article 7 - Following signs shall not be registered as a trademark:

.....b) (Amended: 5194- 22.6.2004/m.13) Trademarks identical or indistinguishably similar with a trademark registered earlier or with an earlier date of application for registration in respect of an identical or same type of product or services, "..."

The main purpose of the identity and similarity examination conducted ex officio under absolute grounds for refusal provided under art.7 of the Decree Law is to protect the distinctive character of the trademarks and public policy by avoiding registry of reiterated trademarks. Basically, this provision takes its place in Turkish Law as a reflection of the origin identifying function of the trademarks. However, while the developments and changes in business life have strengthened other functions of trademarks such as the guarantee function, origin identifying function has gotten much weaker. As a result of domination of the global economic rules, the trademarks have started to indicate goods of a certain quality or services provided under certain standards by drifting away and abstracting themselves from their holders. In this regard, nowadays, consumers perceive the trademarks independent from their proprietor undertakings and choose the product by focusing on the trademark bared rather than the manufacturer.

According to the statement under the absolute grounds for refusal set forth under art.7/1(b) Decree Law, a trademark application should be rejected upon an ex officio examination made by the TPI if the trademark application is "identical or indistinguishably similar" with an earlier registered trademark or an earlier dated application for registration in respect of an "identical or same type of product or services". As a general rule, the determination of "indistinguishable similarity" between the trademarks is based on their overall impressions.

As mentioned above, the regulation concerning the examination of absolute grounds for refusal differs from country to country. Decree Law art.7/1(b), does not take place in Regulation 40/94 constituting the reference text of the Decree Law. Additionally the provision provided under art.7/1(b) of the Decree Law No.556 does not take place under EU Directive 89/104 which has been availed from during preparation of the mentioned Decree Law, either. In fact; there are no provisions within the scope of the absolute grounds for refusal set forth under the mentioned Community Trademark Regulation corresponding to art.7/1(b) of the Decree Law No.556, and the confusingly similarity with an earlier trademark/trademark application has been regulated as the right of opposition directly granted to the holders of the earlier trademarks. Its reflection in practice results in that TPI rejecting some trademarks under absolute grounds for refusal which are already registered under similar conditions in EU member states the legislation of which are thought to be harmonized with Turkish Law. In other words, trademarks concurrently registered in trademark registries of EU member states will not be registered under Turkish Law, with one registered trademark being the ground of refusal of the other even if the trademark holders do not raise any oppositions.

On the other hand, when the TPI decisions are examined it can be perceived that TPI interprets art.7/1(b) of the Decree Law No.556 broadly and may reject even the trademark applications that can be considered as "similar" with the earlier trademark/trademark applications within the meaning of relative grounds for refusal, upon an examination made under absolute grounds for refusal.

It is possible to say that decisions granted by the Civil Courts of Intellectual and Industrial Rights make an interpretation of art.7/1(b) of the Decree Law No.556 complying better with the purpose of the provision, contrary to TPI's broad interpretation. For instance, upon the rejection of "4US" trademark application based on the earlier "FOR US" trademark in accordance with art.7/1(b) of the Decree Law No.556; the 2nd Civil Court of Intellectual and Industrial Rights of Ankara, in its decision dated 01.05.2008 and numbered 2007/90E. 2008/110 K., has stated that the trademark application subject to the action is not identical or indistinguishably similar with the trademark shown as the grounds for the rejection.

It should not be possible to interpret art.7/1(b) not taking place under regulations of many countries and even EU Directive constituting the reference of the Decree Law No.556, in a way that allows TPI to reject even the "similar" trademark applications ex officio.

Another contradicting issue is the letter of consent of the holder of the earlier trademark to the applicant of the later trademark application to overcome the Decree Law art.7/1(b) obstacle. In practice, TPI does not acknowledge such letters of consent and rejects the application under absolute grounds for refusal even if the holder of the earlier trademark consents or does not withdraw the rejection decision in case the consent is submitted at a later stage. The ex officio rejection of the trademark application by the TPI even where there is no dispute between the holder of the earlier trademark and the applicant of the latter trademark application concerning the similarity in trademarks and likelihood of confusion on the part of public, disadvantages the trademark holders. At this point the concept of protected interest is transformed by the Turkish Law system and the priority of the "right of the trademark holder" is diverted to "public policy" and even to "non-deception of the consumers".

Even though there are no regulations in Directive 40/84 concerning the absolute grounds for refusal, in contrast to the TPI application the letters of consent are acknowledged during oppositions. In this regard, even though OHIM accepts that the letter of consents issued by the holder of the earlier trademark for registration of the later trademark application may be valid, it has also adapted the opinion that OHIM will not be bound with such letter of consent since they are private contracts. The 10.12.2004 dated and R 330/2002-2 numbered OMEGA decision and 30.07.2002 dated and R 1167/2006-1 numbered COMPARE decision granted by the OHIM are in this direction. On the other hand, at the 27.11.2007 dated and R 1167/2006-1 numbered SKY decision OHIM has considered a contract of 20 year between the parties and examined the action from the merits. Even though the OHIM has not accepted the applicants claims on the contract since the trademark subject to the dispute regards to "SKY device" trademark while the contract concerned the SKYROCK, SKYZIN and SKY CHANNEL trademarks, the fact that it has examined the contract between the parties from merits shows that the latest approach of the OHIM is to consider the will of the parties.

Although it is not possible to overcome absolute grounds for refusal under the scope of art.7/1(b) of the Decree Law No.556, until the amendment of art.7/II of the Decree Law on 2004, it was possible to register a trademark that was identical or indistinguishably similar with the earlier trademark/trademark application without being affected by the absolute grounds for refusal for the same goods or services in accordance with the reference to the mentioned article of the Decree Law and only if the sign has acquired a distinctive character before the date of registration. Before the amendment on 2004, art.7/II stipulated that "The provisions of (b), (c) & (d) cannot be invoked to refuse the registration of a trademark which has been used before the registration and has acquired distinctive character through this use in respect of the goods and services for which it is to be registered"

Therefore under the practice before 2004, despite the existence of a similar trademark within the meaning of art. 7/1(b), it was possible to register a trademark application through an opposition or action in case the latter trademark application acquired distinctive character through use is rejected due to an earlier registered trademark.

Another aspect of the option provided for the "trademarks acquired distinctiveness through use" is that, under the 6.bis of the Paris Convention it is accepted that the trademarks meeting the status of well-known trademarks should benefit from the mentioned option a fortiori. Decree Law No.556 art.7/1(i) stipulates that applications made for well-known trademarks according to 6.bis 1 of the Paris Convention, without the permission of the proprietor shall be rejected. In this regard, based on the reverse interpretation of art.7/1(i) provision, it can be said that it was possible to register a trademark that is identical or indistinguishably similar with a well-known trademark before the TPI, in case the holder of the well-known trademark according to article 6.bis 1 of the Paris Convention produced a letter of consent, for a long period of time. Again based on this provision, since it was possible to register a trademark in the name of a third party in case the holder of the well-known trademark showed consent, the registration of regular trademarks must also have been possible in case holder the earlier trademark showed consent. However, even though the consent of the proprietor of a regular trademark for the registration of a trademark identical or indistinguishably similar is given effect in practice, there are no precedents indicating acknowledgement of these documents by the TPI.

It can be seen that the settled TPI practice allowing the registration of well known trademarks with the consent of their proprietors has changed upon the amendment of 2004 on the Decree Law No.556. The major reason of this change is based on the abolishment of the reference made by art. 7/II to art.7/1(b) of the Decree Law. Before the amendment of 2004, the obstacle of art.7/1(b) could be overcome by this reference and the letter of consent of the well known trademark proprietor allowing the registration of the identical or indistinguishably similar trademark based on the Court of Appeals precedent concluding that well known trademarks should benefit from the 7/II provision a fortiori.

However, after the amendment on 2004, the "KINDER FRIENDS" trademark application containing the "KINDER" trademark, which has the well-known status and registered in Turkey under the name of an affiliate company of the same company groups managed by the same persons, has been rejected by the TPI due to art.7/1(b) of the Decree Law despite the letter of consent of the trademark holder. The applicant company has filed an action before the 1st Civil Court of Intellectual and Industrial Rights of Ankara for annulment of the mentioned rejection decision. The Court of Appeals has made determinations differing from the practice before 2004 regarding the interpretation and application of articles 7/1(b) and 7/1(i). According to interpretation of Court of Appeals; in terms of Paris Convention 6.bis 1 provision "The conditions for the filing and registration of trademarks shall be determined in each country of the Union by its domestic legislation" and provision of 4.bis 6/B-1 "when trademarks are of such a nature as to infringe rights acquired by third parties in the country where protection is claimed shall not be registered" and art.7/1(b) of the Decree Law, the consent of the registered trademark holder given for registration of a trademark that is identical or confusingly similar with his trademark shall not incur any right in favor of the latter applicant.

With this decision, the Court of Appeals has given priority and superiority to art.7/1(b) as compared to art.7/1(i) both set forth under absolute grounds for refusal. Accordingly, a registered and well-known trademark in Turkey shall not be registered for identical or similar goods/services under the name of a third party even if the holder of the trademark clearly gives consent to.

Therefore, it is not possible to overcome art.7/1(b) which regulates absolute grounds for refusal. Considering that nowadays the trademarks cover a wide range of goods and services, trademark applicants face difficulties to register their trademarks based on the registered but unused trademarks.

It is quite common for the companies to register trademarks that they do not use just because they are similar to the ones they actually use or to register trademarks for goods and services similar to the goods and services which they will actually use their trademark on, with the aim of widening the scope of protection. In this regard trademark applications of the latter applicants are rejected due to unused but registered trademarks and filing an invalidation action against the earlier registrations merely keep Courts unnecessarily occupied.

In light of the above explanations, we are of opinion that a regulation providing the trademark application to initially be compared with the earlier registrations/applications and then be rejected ex officio only if the application is identical with an earlier registration or application, is appropriate as otherwise, the holder of the earlier trademark registration will be obliged to track every trademark application identical to its trademark and file an opposition if that is the case. However, the examination of absolute grounds for refusal to include similar trademarks and especially trademark applications to be rejected even when there is consent of the earlier registered similar trademark causes significant problems in practice as briefly explained above.

Therefore, some provisions in favor of the trademark applicants should be introduced in order for them to obtain trademark protection. In this regard, considering that trademark use liability is for 5 years, this period could be shortened to 3 years as it is in the reference regulation which will at least reduce the number of trademark applications rejected because of the non-used trademarks. Additionally, the TPI to request additional information whether the trademark will be used or not could also be considered as an alternative solution.

Similarly, Court of Appeals and TPI recognizing the letter of consents by taking into account the fact that the origin indicating function of the trademarks has lost its significance may provide a solution.

As a matter of fact, the consent implies the existence of necessary contracts between the parties regarding the legal use of the trademark and indicates that there is no illegality such as counterfeit.

Consequently, we are of opinion that art.7/1(b) should be amended as to comprise only "identical" trademarks registered or applied for earlier and the initiative regarding similar trademarks shall be of the earlier right holder. Even if this is not possible, the phrase "indistinguishably similar" in art.7/1(b) of the Decree Law should be interpreted narrowly in accordance with the wording of the provision. On the other hand, in the case the latter trademark application identical or indistinguishably similar with the earlier trademark is rejected due to art.7/1(b) of the Decree Law, the written consent of the earlier trademark owner allowing registration of the application shall be considered as a presumption that the trademarks are not "indistinguishably similar" and be taken into account during the appeal process, which makes concurrent registration of similar trademarks possible for at least in cases where trademark owners do not have any oppositions against each other.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Uğur Aktekin
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions