This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
IP IN TURKEY


Europe’s leader


As an emerging market, Turkey is increasingly attracting the attention of trademark owners. In 2011, almost 120,000 trademark applications were filed and Turkey has been ranked number one for trademark applications in Europe, outdistancing France, Germany and the UK.


Over the past 10 years, the number of domestic trademark applications has increased fivefold, reaching 103,000 in 2011; those from foreign applicants merely doubled, to 16,700 according to the official filing statistics. When the corresponding registration numbers are compared, it is apparent that the Turkish Patent Institute (TPE) has had difficulties meeting the demand and issued an average of 50,000 registrations over the past five years.


Turkish trademark legislation


Te first regulation of trademarks in Turkish law, the Alamet-i Farika Act, was issued in 1871, making Turkey one of the earliest countries to do so in the world. Although it was followed by a few other regulations and amendments, the biggest step forward was taken aſter the foundation of TPE, with the enactment of the present Trademark Decree-Law 556 in 1995 and the customs union between Turkey and the EU. Tis has been amended subsequently by Laws No. 4128 and No. 5194, and most recently on January 28, 2009 by Law No. 5833. A new IP law is expected to be published soon to overcome some of the deficiencies in the present legislation. Non-registered trademarks are protected under the provisions of the Turkish Commercial Code concerning unfair competition.


Turkey is a member of the Paris Convention and the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement, and so complies with the requirements for the protection of trademarks in Turkish law. Turkey’s possible future accession to the EU, combined with moves towards the


global harmonisation of IP protection, is now the key factor for working towards Turkey’s next IP legislation. With regard to trademarks, Turkey is a party to the:


• Paris Convention on the protection of industrial property (1925);


• Nice Agreement on the international classification of goods and services of marks (January 1, 1996);


• Vienna Agreement on the international classification of the figurative elements of marks (January 1, 1996);


• Protocol relating to the Madrid Agreement (January 1, 1999); and


• Trademark Law Treaty (January 1, 2005).


Te Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks was signed on March 28, 2006, but not effected yet.


Procedural overview Te protection period for a registered trademark is 10 years. It should be renewed every 10 years for the extension of protection. Both goods and services can be included in one application for up to 45 classes, the last 11 of which are for services, in accordance the 10th edition of the Nice classification. Te period from filing to registration takes 12 to 15 months for a straightforward trademark application.


It is a regular practice of the TPE to examine a trademark application on both absolute and relative grounds within six to eight months of its filing date. If an application is rejected, the applicant can appeal to the TPE’s Re-evaluation and Examination Board, with a further appeal to the specialised IP court in Ankara, and to the Supreme Court if necessary. Aſter granting, it will be published for the opposition of third parties for three months in the Official Trademark Bulletin and then registered. Registered trademarks can be cancelled only before the specialised IP courts.


As filing numbers have increased, the workload associated with official trademark similarity searches and opposition proceedings has reached


100 World Intellectual Property Review Annual 2012 www.worldipreview.com


challenging levels for examiners. At present, there are 45 personnel in the TPE’s trademark department, 25 of whom are trademark examiners. TPE tries its best to cope with the volume of work and to minimise inconsistent decisions by trademark examiners.


Our recent study shows that one of every five trademark applications is rejected ex officio; more than 70 percent of the rejections are on the grounds of the existence of confusingly similar applications/ registrations in related classes. It is worth noting that applicants’ success rate in overcoming ex officio trademark rejections is 25 percent and that the success rate of oppositions to invalidate published applications by third parties is 70 percent.


Over-broad trademarks


Turkish applicants want broader trademark protection so as to include non-marketed or would-not-be marketed goods or services. For example, it is not surprising to see an auto tyre patch producer with a registered trademark for all goods in class 12, including motorcars, ships and airplanes. More than one third of applications are filed for two or more classes of goods or services, and most one-class applications include almost all goods or services in the specified class. Tis naturally leads to the dissatisfaction of good faith applicants, an increase in number of oppositions


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  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168  |  Page 169  |  Page 170  |  Page 171  |  Page 172  |  Page 173  |  Page 174  |  Page 175  |  Page 176  |  Page 177  |  Page 178  |  Page 179  |  Page 180