This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
DILUTION OF WELL-KNOWN MARKS


PROVING DILUTION:I THE SITUATION IN TURKEY I


It can be diffi cult to demonstrate the strength of a well-known mark in Turkey, says Özlem Fütman, and companies need the right evidence to show a threat of dilution.


Dilution cases can cause diffi culties for brand owners while opposing a third party application before the Turkish Patent Institute (TPI). Article 8/4 of Turkish Trademark Decree Law no 556 reads as follows:


“A trademark applied for which is identical or similar to a registered trademark or to a trademark with an earlier date of application may be used for diff erent goods and services. However, where in the case of a registered trademark or of a trademark which has an earlier date of application for registration the trademark has a reputation and where the use without due cause of the trademark applied for would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the registered trademark or of the trademark with an earlier application date, upon opposition by the proprietor of the earlier trademark, the trademark


applied for shall not be registered even to be used for goods and services which are not similar to those for which the earlier trademark is registered.”


T e TPI examines cases as follows:


• Whether the opponent has an earlier application/registration for the mark that is claimed as a well-known mark in Turkey;


• Whether the marks are confusingly similar including the risk of being linked;


• Whether the opponent’s mark has a reputation/ is well-known in Turkey ;


• If the applicant could take unfair advantage of the level of fame;


• Whether there may be harm to the earlier mark’s reputation; and


96 World Intellectual Property Review September/October 2013


• Whether the opposed mark would harm the distinctive character of the earlier mark.


If even one of the fi rst three conditions is not fulfi lled, there is no need to examine the claim further. However, if the fi rst three requirements are met, then fulfi lment of one of the last three conditions is enough to decide in favour of the opponent.


T e law does not provide for refusal of each and every mark that is identical or confusingly similar to a well-known mark, since fame is only one of the six conditions stated, meaning each dilution case is a challenge.


When considering similarity between the marks, the TPI’s looks at “whether in public’s mind these two signs would be linked”. When examining the case from this point of view, the TPI also takes into account the criteria indicated in Articles


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  |  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  |  Page 181  |  Page 182  |  Page 183  |  Page 184  |  Page 185  |  Page 186  |  Page 187  |  Page 188  |  Page 189  |  Page 190  |  Page 191  |  Page 192  |  Page 193  |  Page 194  |  Page 195  |  Page 196