Administrative Revocation Of Trademarks Is Now Fully In Effect!

In accordance with Article 26 of the Industrial Property Code (“IP Code”) no. 6769, interested persons may request the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (“the Office”) to revoke a trademark.

The authority to revoke the trademarks had belonged to the IP Courts. However, with the entry into force of the IP Code on January 10, 2017, this authority has been granted to the Office. In order to provide a transition period, the entry into force of Article 26 had been postponed for 7 years. In the meantime, as per Provisional Article 4 of the IP Code, the authority remained with the IP Courts.

After the entry into force of Article 26 on January 10, 2024, although it was possible to file the revocation request – as pre-application –through the Office’s online system¹, the Office could not start examining revocation requests due to lack of an implementing regulation.

This waiting period ended on March 15, 2025, when the Regulation on Amendment of the Regulation on the Implementation of the IP Code (“Regulation”) was published.

Although certain provisions of the Regulation have been subject to criticism, it constituted an important step in initiating the examination of revocation requests.

Procedural framework for revocation applications

Article 30/A-3 of the Regulation sets forth that a revocation request can be filed against the trademark proprietor or its legal successor.

As per Article 27/2 of the IP Code, the revocation decision is effective as of the filing date of the revocation request and if the revocation request owner believes that the revocation conditions have been fulfilled at an earlier date, it needs to be explicitly mentioned.

With the Regulation, in addition to the application fee, an escrow fee has been introduced for revocation requests filed after March 15, 2025, which will be held in the escrow account until the Office renders its final decision on the revocation request. 

Upon the Office’s final decision if the revocation request is entirely rejected, the escrow fee will be paid to the trademark proprietor upon request. If the revocation request is entirely accepted, the escrow fee will be refunded to the revocation request owner upon request. If the revocation request is partially accepted no payment is made to either party and the escrow fee will be recorded as revenue for the Office.

For 2026, the escrow fee is determined as TRY 29,433.33 (approx. EUR 575 based on the exchange rate as of January 26, 2026) that needs to be paid in addition to the application fee which is determined as TRY 29,433.33 + VAT of 20% (TRY 35,319.996 including VAT, approx. EUR 690 based on the exchange rate as of January 26, 2026).

It is only possible to direct a revocation request against one trademark at a time. Previously, it was possible to direct a revocation court action against several trademarks. We believe that filing separate requests against the same applicant’s same/similar trademarks may cause inconsistency in the decisions and is a burden for the Office.

Post-application process

After the revocation request is duly filed, the Office will ask the trademark proprietor to file evidence proving that the conditions set forth under relevant revocation claim are not met.

The trademark proprietor will have 1 month (or upon request an additional 1 month) to file its evidence against the revocation request. We noted in practice that the Office does not render an interim decision and/or notify the trademark proprietor granting time extension and the additional 1-month period starts as of the request date.

In practice, revocation request based on non-use is the most common revocation claim. In case of a non-use revocation request, the trademark proprietor shall file evidence proving genuine use of the trademark on the relevant goods/services or evidence showing the non-use relies on rightful grounds. Any use, upon the motive that a revocation request may be filed, within the period of 3 months prior to the submission of a request to the Office shall be disregarded.

A practical issue was observed due to a software deficiency in the Office’s online system concerning trademark revocation requests, where documents submitted by the trademark proprietor, including the appeal petition, could not be accessed by the revocation request owner. However, the Office has recently updated its online system and remedied this shortcoming.

Decision and next steps

If no evidence is filed in due time or if evidence submitted is not found sufficient, the Office will accept the revocation request.

As a substantial and unprecedented amendment with respect to the non-use revocation requests, the Regulation provided that a revocation decision cannot be issued concerning “a trademark for identical or similar goods/services” – most likely added to ensure that a trademark is not revoked for goods/services for which use is proven, but this should not be extended to similar goods/services².

The Office has already faced a substantial workload with pre-applications. Nevertheless, the Office has begun to issue decisions on the pending revocation requests within a couple of months.

We noted from the decisions received so far that the Office examined revocation requests properly and meticulously. Below are some observations regarding the decisions rendered so far:

• It adopts a strict approach and mainly requires the existence of legitimate legal interest to decide that revocation has retroactive effect.
• It assesses whether the revocation request owner has legal interest in filing for the revocation request by referring to Article 26/2 of the IP Code.
• It takes into consideration 5 years prior to the revocation request in the examination of genuine and consecutive use and does not take evidence that fall outside this period, in line with the IP Code. The Office also noted in one of its decisions that it would not take the evidence into consideration if it is proven that the trademark proprietor started using the trademark during this period as a result of the risk of revocation.
• It explores whether or not the trademark is used in the way it is registered.
• It does not decide for the revocation of the goods/services similar to the goods/services for which the use is proven. For instance, it did not decide for the revocation of the goods "axle bushing, connecting rod bushing, travel bearing, camshaft bushing, balance bushing, piston ring bushing, camshaft bearing, crankshaft bearing" by noting that the use is proven for “Motor mounts other than land vehicles or land vehicles”.
• It rejects the defense that the revocation request was made in bad faith and their trademark was not similar to the requesting party’s trademark, as the relevant provisions do not address bad faith or an examination of similarity in relation to trademark revocation.
• As per the effectiveness of the evidence, the Office noted that invoices are considered strong evidence as they are official documents and direct indications of commercial activity.

Although it is not explicitly mentioned in the Regulation, revocation requests are examined by the Trademarks Department and it is possible to appeal its decision before the Re-Examination and Evaluation Board (“Higher Board”) within 2 months. It is also possible to file a cancellation action against the Higher Board’s decision before the competent Ankara IP Courts within 2 months.

The Office’s final revocation decision will be recorded in the registry and published in the bulletin with immediate effect. In other words, a cancellation action filed against the Higher Board’s decision does not prevent the execution of the Office’s revocation decision. Therefore, the proper examination of the revocation request is important. Indeed, in case of a revocation decision, the trademark proprietor will lose protection until the finalization of the court decision cancelling the Higher Board’s decision.

Remarks

We expect administrative revocation requests to be a common counterattack strategy due to its cost and time effectiveness. Applicants can strategically request revocation of basis trademarks as a counterattack to oppositions filed and of obstacle trademarks in terms of Article 5/1(ç)³ of the IP Code and ask the Office to hold off examining the opposition and/or appeal until a final decision is rendered on the revocation request. Similarly, trademark squatters or infringers may target trademarks of the genuine trademark proprietors by abusing the administrative revocation system. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the Office introduced the escrow fee to dissuade unnecessary and unjust revocation requests by making the costs of the administrative revocation parallel to that of revocation court action. Nevertheless, considering the time effectiveness and practicality of the administrative revocation, we think that it will still be a preferred procedure.

For this reason, we believe that it will be advisable for trademark proprietors to ensure that their trademarks are stated on invoices, products, catalogues, etc., and archive these together with any other available evidence such as advertisements, magazine or newspaper articles, or similar documentation.

Footnotes

1. Electronic Application System (“EPATS”).

2. https://gun.av.tr/insights/updates/turkpatent-issues-long-awaited-amendments-on-implementing-regulations-of-ip-code-regarding-administrative-revocation-of-trademarks

3. Signs which are identical to or indistinguishably similar to a trademark, which has been registered or which has been applied for registration, relating to identical goods and services or to goods and services of the identical type.

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.