JURISDICTION REPORT: TURKEY
NEW GUIDELINES PROMISE MUCH IN TURKEY
Isik Ozdogan and Ezgi Baklaci Moroglu Arseven Law Firm
In November 2011, the Turkish Patent Institute (TPI) published Trademark and Industrial Design Examination Guidelines. Te guidelines were prepared with the collaboration of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) and German Federal Patent Court judges, within the scope of the EU twinning project entitled ‘Supporting Turkey for Enhancing Implementation and Enforcement of Industrial Property Rights’ which has been carried out by TPI and the German Foundation for International Legal Cooperation (IRZ).
In introductory meetings, the TPI stated that although the guidelines were prepared based on OHIM’s Examination Guidelines, the existing implementations, proceedings and precedents of Turkish Trademark Law were also considered.
Te Trademark Examination Guidelines do not bring a fundamental change to trademark application and opposition examination proceedings. Tey merely bring together all previous uncodified criteria. One of the criteria that can be considered as new for Turkish practice concerns the application requirements for single colour or colour-combination trademarks. As of the guidelines’ publication, the TPI will also require a reference to the internationally-accepted colour code (RAL, Pantone, etc) of the subject colour or colours.
Te guidelines also provide criteria for use in similarity examinations by way of examples. Specifically:
• Trademarks consisting of one identical letter or number will be considered as different if they are stylised differently or contain different figurative elements.
• Trademarks consisting of two or three identical letters or numbers in the same sequence will be deemed confusingly similar. However, the symbol ‘&’ can eliminate the confusion unless the prior trademark is a well-known trademark.
• Trademarks consisting of two or three identical letters or numbers in the same sequence will be considered as different if they are stylised differently or contain different figurative elements. For example, the following two ‘GD’ trademarks are considered to be different.
Not confusingly similar
• Trademarks forming a meaningful phrase through the combination of a possessive suffix and a noun will not be deemed confusingly similar. However, if addition of the possessive suffix results in a word with no meaning the trademarks will be considered similar.
• Conceptual similarity will not be enough to deem two figurative elements confusingly similar. In addition to conceptual similarity, the figurative element
64 World Intellectual Property Review March/April 2012
should also be visually similar. In the following example, the eagle figures do not display sufficient similarity to constitute confusing similarity.
Not confusingly similar
Te criterion to consider the ‘word element’ initially in trademarks as consisting of a word and a figurative element will remain unchanged. However, the new guidelines stipulate that if the earlier trademark’s figurative element displays a high level of distinctiveness and the trademark in question contains a direct copy of the earlier trademark’s figurative element, the trademarks will be deemed confusingly similar even if the word elements are completely different.
Confusingly similar
Te TPI also enumerated in the guidelines some points that will be considered in determination of a bad faith application:
• Copying a unique, distinctive trademark which is registered within Turkey or abroad in a way that cannot be considered a coincidence;
• Trademark applications made with the purpose of taking unfair advantage of well-known and distinctive trademarks in the same or related market;
• Similar trademark applications filed by a related person/company of the earlier trademark owner (such as employment, contractual, or any other commercial relation);
• Systematically applying to register reputable foreign trademarks which are not registered in Turkey; and
• Applications exclusively made with the intent of preventing the real right owner’s entrance into the Turkish market, or with the intent to sell the trademark to the real right owner.
Apart from the above points, the guidelines introduce many other criteria that have not been aggregated until now. Te decisions of TPI and their implementation will be more transparent and predictable from now on.
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
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