DILUTION OF WELL-KNOWN MARKS


products and using the mark in a humiliating way, among others. Evidence should be submitted to prove the harm.


“IN BOTH COURT AND TPI DECISIONS IT IS CLEARLY INDICATED THAT THE CRITERIA APPLIED IN THE PARIS CONVENTION FOR WELL-KNOWN MARKS ARE ALSO APPLIED TO ARTICLE 8/4 IN TURKEY.”


In principle, the claimant should prove its claims or at least has to be convincing that there is a serious risk. For that reason, the opponent is under the burden to prove its claim with written evidence.


If the opponent’s mark is registered in several classes then the TPI examines its well-known status for each good/service and if it decides that it is well-known only for some goods/services, then only these are taken into account during the dilution examination.


7/1-b and 8/1-b. Tere is no need to point out that highly distinctive marks get more benefit from the well-known criterion.


While examining good/services, the TPI looks for the correlation in similarity between the marks and goods/services. However, if the similarity between goods/services is lower but the similarity between the marks is higher, the opponent will still have a good chance of success. Our experience shows that examiners pay more attention to class lists from the Nice Classification while examining an application, but look at the picture more broadly during opposition proceedings.


From the wording of Article 8/4 it is understood that


the last three criteria would be “likely”,


but the effects also need to be predictable and probable. Tis means just making the argument is not enough.


www.worldipreview.com


In both court and TPI decisions it is clearly indicated that the criteria applied in the Paris Convention for well-known marks are also applied to Article 8/4 in Turkey. Meanwhile, a mark can be not well-known but be known in the public. As understood from the wording of Article 8/4 and TPI practice, TPI’s focus is on activities and reputation in Turkey. Terefore, for dilution claims, only evidence related to Turkey is counted whereas evidence about foreign jurisdictions is not.


Reputation should have developed before the opposed mark’s date of application. Tis means opponents have to be careful about the date of their evidence. In many cases, this point is missed by the opposing party. Fame is assessed by reference to the ‘related sector’.


When looking at the issue of unfair advantage, the TPI does not look for intention to harm the opponent but for unfair advantage by benefiting from the earlier mark’s reputation and its distinctive character. Te other criterion is whether consumers are likely to link the two marks.


Examples of harming the reputation of a mark include using the brand on lower-quality


World Intellectual Property Review September/October 2013 97


Özlem Fütman has a Master’s degree in IP from Franklin Pierce Law Center and has experience in all aspects of IP prosecution, advice and litigation, where she represents multinational clients in trademarks, copyrights, industrial designs, domain names, licensing and passing off matters.


When it comes to damaging the distinctive character of a mark, this means decreasing the distinctive character of an opponent’s mark through use of it by different entities simultaneously for different types of goods and services in the market. Te use weakens the fame and identity of the brand. Te more well- known the opponent’s mark, the more this risk heightens. However, if during examination the applicant can prove that the same mark is used in different sectors in the market by separate entities, this counter-argument may negatively affect the opponent’s claim. In the same context, if the applicant can prove that the opponent did not oppose applications of other third parties for the same/similar mark, it can be taken that the opponent was not concerned that consumers would be confused or link the marks.


Tere is no difference between wordmarks and device marks when it comes to dilution cases. In one case, we opposed a Turkish application consisting of a ‘Herbalife’ device used consistently with a sub-brand. Te Appeal Board accepted our claims even though the first opposition was refused because of class difference. According to our experience, dilution claims are mostly refused in the first opposition step before the TPI, but the Appeal Board examines them in more detail and may accept them. 


Özlem Fütman is a founding partner of OFO Ventura. She can be contacted at: ofutman@ofoventura.com.tr


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