JURISDICTION REPORT: TURKEY
USAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR WELL-KNOWN TRADEMARKS
Isik Ozdogan and Ezgi Baklaci Moroglu Arseven Law Firm
Te Council of Appellate Circuits of the Turkish Court of Appeals (the council) recently rendered a key decision (2010/11-695 E., 2011/47 K) with regard to well-known trademarks’ usage requirements in different classes. As is widely known, well-known trademarks’ usage requirements and protection in different classes is a contentious issue in many jurisdictions. Te council has finally decided that a well-known trademark cannot be protected in different classes and will be partially cancelled if the trademark is not in use in these classes. Actually, this decision might create a paradox with the expanded well-known trademark protection in different classes.
In the subject case, a foreign company started a non-use action against a well-known Turkish furniture company that actively uses its trademark only in class 20, but owns registrations for whole classes. Te claimant claimed the partial revocation of the subject trademark for all classes other than class 20. Te First Instance Court (FIC) dismissed the case based on the grounds that well-known trademarks should be protected for all the goods and services that are covered by the registration. Te FIC stated that, although there is no exception for use requirement of well-known trademarks in Trademark Decree Law no: 556, the provisions of this legal arrangement should be interpreted together with Article 8/4 of the same, which expands the protection of well-known trademarks.
Te claimant appealed the decision. Te Appeals Court reversed the decision of the FIC with the reasoning that well-known trademarks can be subject to non-use actions. Te Appeals Court stated that the usage requirement provisions do not have an exception for well-known trademarks. A well-known trademark can be subject to non-use action and to partial revocation for the classes in which it is not in use. Te Decree Law no: 556 expands the protection of well-known trademarks with Article 8/4; this article gives the well-known trademark owners the right to oppose or initiate a lawsuit against an applicant who tries to register the well- known trademark in different classes. In other words, the provision that provides enhanced protection for well-known trademarks does not bring an exception with regard to the usage requirement. Te file was sent back to the FIC.
Te FIC insisted on its original decision, so it was appealed and sent to the council by the claimant. Te council reversed the FIC’s decision in keeping with the Appeals Court, but with more detailed grounds. Te council stated that there is no exception in Decree Law no: 556 for well-known trademarks with regard to the five year usage requirement. On the other hand, Decree Law no: 556 Article 7/1-(i) and Article 8/4 give the right for the trademark owner to oppose or start a cancellation action against any trademark which is similar/identical with the well-known trademark in different classes.
www.worldipreview.com
“THE COUNCIL STATED THAT THERE IS NO EXCEPTION IN DECREE LAW NO: 556 FOR WELL-KNOWN TRADEMARKS WITH REGARD TO THE FIVE YEAR USAGE REQUIREMENT.”
Articles 7/1-(i) and Article 8/4 of Decree Law no: 556 protect well-known trademarks in case the well-known trademark owner can prove that the other party will gain an unfair and unlawful benefit from the well-known trademark and that the average consumer will link the other party’s trademark with the well-known trademark. Te council is of the opinion that since 7/1-(i) and Article 8/4 will protect well-known trademarks, there is no reason to immunise well-known trademarks from the usage requirement. On the other hand, as a result of the above explained reason, the Turkish Patent Institute cannot ex officio reject a trademark application which is similar/identical to a well-known trademark but covers the classes that the well-known trademark does not cover or actively use.
In conclusion, the council decided that well-known trademarks can also be subject to partial revocation for the classes which are not in use. In Turkey the decisions of the council set precedence for the First Instance and Appeals Courts. Although this decision might be considered fair for this case, since it will be binding precedent it will create a paradox with the expanded well-known trademark protection in different classes. Te well- known trademark owners may have difficulties because of this decision.
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
World Intellectual Property Review November/December 2011 87
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