TRADEMARK FRUSTRATIONS IN TURKEY JURISDICTION REPORT: TURKEY
Isik Ozdogan and Ezgi Baklaci Moroglu Arseven Law Firm
Te acceptability of consent letters, co-existence agreements and sister company arrangements are oſten explored by the applicants whose trademarks are provisionally refused based on a prior registration in Turkey. Contrary to all expectations, consent letters, co-existence agreements and sister company arrangements do not overcome a provisional refusal in Turkey. In other words, even if the prior registration holder consents to the later trademark, the Turkish Patent Institute (TPI) will still not cancel the provisional refusal decision.
Once a trademark application is filed, the TPI examines the application according to article 7 of Decree Law no. 556. According to article 1 (b) of the law, trademarks that are identical or confusingly similar to an earlier trademark for the same or similar goods or services are ex officio refused. In this case, the only option is to appeal against the provisional refusal decision and demonstrate the dissimilarity of the trademarks or of the relevant goods or services. Until 2004, alleging distinctiveness acquired by usage before the registration date could also overcome the provisional refusal. However, this is no longer an option since the law was amended, because, according to the TPI, a phrase can only be registered in the name of one holder for given goods or services.
Applicants whose trademarks are provisionally refused based on a prior registration in Turkey might consider the following approaches:
• Submitting a letter of consent or co-existence agreement: Turkish Trademark Law does not mention the registration holder’s consent to a later trademark application. Te grounds of provisional refusal are considered to be a public policy and therefore a consumer protection matter. For this reason, even the registration holder’s consent is not enough to overcome provisional refusal.
• Agreements between sister companies: In some cases, the later trademark application is refused because of the applicant’s sister company’s older registration. Even if the applicant clearly explains and proves the companies’ relationship, the TPI will still not cancel the provisional refusal decision. In this case, the only way to overcome the provisional refusal is to gather the trademarks under the same roof. Terefore, the applicant usually appeals the provisional refusal decision to gain time and reassigns the older trademark.
• Assignment of the provisionally refused trademark to the existing holder until it is registered: Tis act can be invalid as it can be considered as a fraud against the law. Additionally, article 16/5 of the law prevents this. According to the article, when a trademark registration is assigned, it is necessary also to assign any identical or similar trademarks (for the same/similar goods or services). In practice, when an application for
“ CONTRARY TO ALL EXPECTATIONS, CONSENT LETTERS, CO-EXISTENCE AGREEMENTS AND SISTER COMPANY ARRANGEMENTS DO NOT OVERCOME A PROVISIONAL REFUSAL IN TURKEY. IN OTHER WORDS, EVEN IF THE PRIOR REGISTRATION HOLDER CONSENTS TO THE LATER TRADEMARK, THE TURKISH PATENT INSTITUTE (TPI) WILL STILL NOT CANCEL THE PROVISIONAL REFUSAL DECISION.”
recordal of the trademark assignment is filed, the TPI gives two months for the assignment of the remaining identical/similar trademarks to the assignee. If these marks are not gathered under the same roof within two months, the application for the recordal of the assignment is refused. Terefore, assigning the provisionally refused trademark to the older registration holder only serves to have the trademark registered in the name of the older registration holder.
In fact, it is not possible to overcome provisional refusal using conventional means. Terefore, it seems that the only option is to register the trademark of the older registration holder and try to obtain a licence from it.
Isik Ozdogan is a partner at Moroglu Arseven Law Firm. She can be contacted at:
iozdogan@morogluarseven.av.tr
Ezgi Baklaci is an associate at Moroglu Arseven Law Firm. She can be contacted at:
ebaklaci@morogluarseven.av.tr
96 World Intellectual Property Review November/December 2010
www.worldipreview.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108