JURISDICTION REPORT: TURKEY
A NEW EXCEPTION TO TRADEMARK USE REQUIREMENTS
Isik Ozdogan and Ezgi Baklaci Moroglu Arseven Law Firm
Te Turkish Court of Appeals rendered a landmark decision regarding the trademark use requirement. According to local legislation and practice, only the use of a trademark in Turkey fulfils that requirement. Additionally, importing goods bearing the trademark is also considered as ‘use’ for that trademark.
The Court of Appeals granted a new exception to the above explained rule. In a recent lawsuit which was filed against an international broadcasting company for the cancellation of its trademark (which is registered in class 38) based on non-use, the court found that a trademark may meet the use requirement without actually being produced or served within Turkish borders. In the lawsuit, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant was not broadcasting via cablecast and registered before the Radio and Television Supreme Council for the last five years, which proved that the subject trademark had not been in use in Turkey. The defendant based its defence on the fact that the trademark was in use in Turkey through Internet or satellite broadcasting. The defendant also claimed that the subject channel can be viewed in the public domain, including at hotels.
Te Court of Appeals upheld the First Instance Court’s decision, stating that broadcasting services which are not served within Turkey and provided via satellite or Internet are considered as ‘use of the trademark within Turkey’, based on the reason that the defendant’s TV channels are easily viewed by the general public in Turkey. Te Court of Appeals stated that ‘transmission’ is defined as the ‘initial emission by terrestrial transmitter, by cable or by satellite or whatever nature in encoded or unencoded form of television programme services for reception by the general public’ according to article 2/a of the European Convention of Transfrontier Television.
Even though the Trademark Decree Law no: 556 does not require that the broadcasting or initial emission take place within Turkish borders, the Court of Appeals agreed that the trademark is in use in Turkey, since the general public can easily view a TV channel by Internet or satellite even though the TV channel does not operate in Turkey. In addition, developing technology enables the TV broadcasting companies to provide their services through different platforms.
With this decision, the Court of Appeals created an important exception to the use requirement in Turkey. In practice, the Turkish Patent Institute and the First Instance Court have long recognised the use of a trademark via online international shopping sites as fulfilling the use requirement. It seems that with globalisation, the principle of territoriality and use- requirement within a territory will slowly be eroded.
88
“THE TRADEMARK IS IN USE IN TURKEY BECAUSE THE GENERAL PUBLIC CAN EASILY VIEW A TV CHANNEL BY INTERNET OR SATELLITE, EVEN IF THE TV CHANNEL DOES NOT OPERATE IN TURKEY.”
Assigning trademarks during pending lawsuits According to Turkish Trademark Legislation, if a trademark has not been used or the use has been suspended for a five-year period, the trademark shall be due for cancellation. A non-use action may be initiated against the proprietor of the trademark on whose name the trademark stands, at the time when the lawsuit is initiated. However, what happens if the trademark is transferred to a third party during the non-use action?
Te Assembly of Civil Chambers rendered a landmark decision about transfer of a trademark during the period that it is subject to non-use actions. In a recent lawsuit covering this topic, the assembly decided that the plaintiff should proceed to legal action with the new proprietor. Te assembly stated that the transfer of a trademark has the same effect as the ‘transfer of the claim’ and the assignee shall take over the trademark with all its rights and claims. For this reason the ongoing non-use action will remain as it is and will continue with the new proprietor.
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 January/February 2012
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