JURISDICTION REPORT: TURKEY
SIMILARITY AND THE LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Isik Ozdogan and Ezgi Baklaci Moroglu Arseven
Turkey is one of the countries that examine the similarity of trademarks under absolute grounds for refusal. Within this context, similarity is a ground for refusal both within the scope of Article 7 of Trademark Decree Law no 556, in which the absolute grounds for refusal are listed, and Article 8, which lists the relative grounds for refusal.
Undoubtedly, the level of similarity that should be taken into account during the examination on absolute grounds (Article 7) and relative grounds (Article 8) is not the same. According to Decree Law no 556, for the similarity test on absolute grounds under Article 7, the Turkish Patent Institute (TPI) should consider the “sameness” and “confusing similarity” of the trademarks. Examinations based on relative grounds under Article 8, on the other hand, consider “confusing similarity” and “likelihood of confusion”. In other words, as a rule, “likelihood of confusion” is not considered during the similarity test on absolute grounds under Article 7.
In practice however, in some cases the TPI considers the trademarks as “confusingly similar” according to absolute grounds although the trademarks should have been tested on relative grounds and the “likelihood of confusion” should also have been evaluated. In other words, because the TPI follows the letter of Article 7 exactly, it rejects the later confusingly similar trademark without evaluating the likelihood of confusion. Tis practice surely causes unfair outcomes to occur, since not all trademarks that are confusingly similar would necessarily create confusion between the trademarks in the consumer’s mind.
Indeed, in some cases trademark applications are being rejected because of earlier non-identical trademarks, and it is usually not possible to overcome this provisional refusal decision (because consent letters are not acceptable in Turkish practice). Occasionally, a trademark which would not meet opposition if published, cannot obtain registration as it cannot pass the examination on absolute grounds.
Tis ambiguity on the limit of the TPI’s discretion on similarity examinations has led the Appeal Court to draw a line of demarcation for Article 7 examinations on absolute grounds. In February 2012, the 11th Civil Chamber of the Turkish Appellate Court rendered a landmark decision (Gun Law Firm archive) with respect to examinations on absolute grounds.
Te trademarks subject to the decision were ‘SELEX’ which was applied for the goods and services in classes 09, 36, 37 and 39 and the earlier trademarks ‘SSSS SSSSELEKSSS’, ‘SELEKS KARGO’, ‘SELEKS LOJISTIK’, ‘SELX CARGO’ and ‘SELX LOGISTICS’ in the same classes. Te TPI rejected the trademark SELEX because of the earlier trademarks containing the phrases SELEKS and SELX. Once the First Instance Court had approved the TPI’s decision, the dispute was taken to the Appeal Court.
www.worldipreview.com
“AS THE LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION CANNOT BE ASSESSED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ARTICLE 7, CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TRADEMARKS SHOULD NOT BE REJECTED ON ABSOLUTE GROUNDS.”
Te Appeal Court upheld the First Instance Court decision with a very comprehensive justification based on the similarity test of Articles 7 and 8. Within this context the Appeal Court stated that the TPI should understand sameness as “identity”, “alike”, “exactly identical” or “copied”. Identical trademarks stylised with different colours or typed with a different character size should also be considered within this scope. “Confusing similarity” as considered within the scope of an examination on absolute grounds means trademarks with little or no difference, ie, marks that could not be distinguished by the average consumer. Terefore, when the TPI accepts a trademark as similar to an earlier trademark, it rejects the new application on the grounds of “confusing similarity” without assessing the “likelihood of confusion”.
However, the Appeal Court is of the opinion that confusingly similar trademarks cannot be rejected without evaluating the likelihood of confusion. In other words, the Appeal Court states that if the TPI deems the trademark confusingly similar, it should also look at the likelihood of confusion. As the likelihood of confusion cannot be assessed within the scope of Article 7, confusingly similar trademarks should not be rejected on absolute grounds.
Terefore the Appeal Court upheld the First Instance Court decision, based on the reason that even though the trademark ‘SELEX’ is similar to the phrases SELEKS and SELX of the cited trademarks, the cited trademarks contain different elements with different letters and style. Te Appeal Court is of the opinion that with these differences the trademarks cannot be deemed as identical and the TPI cannot ex officio accept the likelihood of confusion.
Te decision of the Appeal Court is remarkable as it clearly accepts that the likelihood of confusion should be assessed upon a third party opposition, not during the examination on absolute grounds. In other words, a new trademark application that appears to be similar to an earlier trademark may be accepted, but it is up to the third party opposition to oppose it based on “confusing similarity”.
Isik Ozdogan is a partner at Moroglu Arseven. She can be contacted at:
iozdogan@morogluarseven.av.tr
Ezgi Baklaci is a senior associate at Moroglu Arseven. She can be contacted at:
ebaklaci@morogluarseven.av.tr
World Intellectual Property Review July/August 2012 73
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