General
Under Article 26 of the Turkish Industrial Property Code (“6769 SMK”), revocation of a trademark may be sought on the grounds of lack of genuine use, the trademark having become the common name in the trade for the goods or services for which it is registered, the trademark becoming misleading as to the nature, quality or geographical origin of the goods or services as a result of its use, and non-compliance with the regulations governing the use of certification or collective marks. Each of these grounds is founded on distinct factual circumstances and requires a differentiated evidentiary framework, both as regards substantiation and proof.
Lack of genuine use
In revocation actions based on lack of genuine use, it must be borne in mind that the existence, scope, or priority of the applicant’s own trademark rights is irrelevant to the assessment carried out by the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (“TURKPATENT”). The examination is confined to the goods and services for which the contested trademark is registered and those goods and services in respect of which genuine use has been established.
Proof of genuine use cannot be limited to advertising materials or website screenshots alone. Evidence demonstrating actual commercial exploitation—such as sales invoices, delivery or shipment documents, contracts, catalogues, marketplace listings, in-store displays, and records originating from independent third parties—carries substantially greater probative value in line with EUIPO practice.
The notion of proper reasons for non-use, which constitutes an exception to the obligation of genuine use, must not be overlooked. Since the trademark proprietor may invoke proper reasons justifying non-use, revocation applicants should assess whether circumstances such as sector-specific constraints, supply chain disruptions, regulatory requirements, or import restrictions were genuinely unavoidable. Conversely, trademark proprietors who have interrupted use are advised to maintain systematic documentation capable of substantiating the existence and duration of such proper reasons.
The trademark having become the common name in the trade
Revocation on the ground that a trademark has become the common name in the trade often remains abstract unless supported by concrete evidence showing the erosion of the trademark’s essential function as an indicator of origin. Relevant evidence may include consumer perception data, sectoral usage patterns, references in dictionaries or encyclopedias, press coverage, and instances where competitors or distributors use the sign as a product designation rather than as a trademark.
The trademark becoming misleading
In cases concerning misleading use, the decisive reference point is not the time of registration but the evolution of the sign during its period of use. The legal risk does not lie in the mark being inherently misleading ab initio, but in its becoming misleading, through use, as to the nature, quality, or geographical origin of the goods or services. Accordingly, the formulation of a consistent use strategy and the active management of the trademark portfolio are of critical importance.
Non-compliance with the regulations governing certification or collective marks
With respect to revocation actions based on certification or collective marks, a recurrent and critical deficiency is the failure to implement and monitor compliance with the regulations governing use that were submitted at the application stage. The absence of an effective control mechanism, lack of inspections, and the non-functioning of structures designed to safeguard consumers or members are particularly determinative indicators in this context.
Partial revocation
Another significant consideration is that, where revocation may be sought only in respect of specific goods or services rather than the registration as a whole, limiting the scope of the application accordingly both rationalizes the burden of proof and enhances the practical enforceability of the resulting decision. It should likewise be borne in mind that seeking protection for goods or services for which use is not genuinely intended entails inherent legal risks.
Judicial review of TURKPATENT decisions
Decisions rendered by the Re-examination and Evaluation Board (“YIDD”) of TURKPATENT in revocation proceedings may be challenged before the competent courts within two months from notification. As these actions are confined to judicial review of the legality and appropriateness of the YIDD’s decision, the prohibition on extending claims applies. Evidence not submitted during the administrative phase will therefore not be taken into account by the court, underscoring the need to conduct the proceedings before TURKPATENT with due diligence and procedural completeness.
Structural gaps between administrative revocation and court proceedings
Where a registered trademark is revoked through the administrative revocation procedure, the decision becomes final and is published in the Official Trademakr Bulletin. Consequently, even if an action for annulment of the YIDD decision is brought, there is no legal impediment preventing the re-registration of an identical trademark by a third party for the same goods and services. Even if the court proceedings ultimately conclude, years later, in favour of the former proprietor, the mark may in the interim have been registered in the name of another party for the same classes. This scenario constitutes a material legal risk that should not be disregarded.
