Distinctive names, absolute and relative refusal grounds, confusion and trademark monitoring in Türkiye.
A name should be both registrable and capable of being defended. A distinctive choice reduces some legal risks, but no naming category guarantees registration or success in a dispute.
This part examines distinctiveness, the refusal grounds in Articles 5 and 6 of Industrial Property Code No. 6769 and the importance of monitoring competing applications.
1. Distinctiveness: strong and weak marks
Under Article 5(2), use before the application can overcome the specified non-distinctiveness, descriptiveness and customary-sign grounds where the mark has acquired distinctiveness for the goods or services concerned. This requires evidence; it is not a way to overcome every absolute ground. Adding a logo to descriptive words does not necessarily give an exclusive right over those words alone.
2. Absolute grounds examined by the Office
TÜRKPATENT examines Article 5 grounds on its own initiative. They include lack of distinctiveness, descriptive or customary signs, deceptive signs, protected official symbols, public policy or morality issues and other grounds specified in the Code.
One important qualification is Article 5(1)(ç): an identical or indistinguishably similar earlier registered or pending mark covering identical or same-type goods/services can also be an absolute refusal ground. It is therefore inaccurate to say that every earlier-right conflict is assessed only after an opposition. The Code provides a notarised consent mechanism for this particular ground, subject to its conditions.
For textile businesses, fabric types, fibres, production methods and geographical textile names deserve particular scrutiny. Words such as “organic” or “soft” may describe a product characteristic rather than identify one business. A composition claim suggesting cotton for goods that contain none can also raise trademark, advertising and consumer-law issues. The meaning of the sign as a whole and the specified goods must be assessed.
3. Relative grounds and likelihood of confusion
Article 6 grounds generally arise on opposition by an earlier rights holder. Principal examples include:
- An identical or similar earlier mark for identical or similar goods/services where the public may be confused, including through association.
- Earlier rights in an unregistered mark or another sign used in trade, where the statutory conditions are met.
- Applications by an agent or representative without the owner’s authorisation and without a justified reason.
- Well-known or reputed marks under the relevant provisions. Wider protection, including for different goods/services, depends on the applicable requirements such as unfair advantage, detriment to reputation or distinctive character; it is not automatic for every familiar mark.
- Other protected rights and bad-faith applications, for example a filing intended to obstruct another business or hold its brand hostage.
Confusion requires an overall assessment of visual, phonetic and conceptual similarity, relevant consumers and the goods/services. Class numbers are not decisive. Clothing in Class 25, fabrics in Class 24 and particular retail services in Class 35 may be connected, but the relationship is not assumed solely from their class labels.
4. Publication opposition and monitoring
The publication opposition period is two months from publication in the Official Trademark Bulletin. Submit the grounds and meet the fee requirements in time. Once it expires, that publication opposition cannot simply be filed late.
If your application is opposed, review the exact earlier rights, goods/services and evidence. Consider a properly assessed limitation, response or settlement; narrowing a list is not a universal solution.
If a competing application conflicts with your rights, regular Bulletin monitoring is needed to identify it before the deadline.
If the opposition period was missed, assess a court invalidity action where the legal grounds exist. Administrative cancellation has its own specific grounds and is not a substitute for every missed opposition.
Five years of acquiescence
Under Article 25(6), an earlier owner who knew or should have known of a later mark’s use and tolerated it for five consecutive years is generally prevented from relying on that mark as an invalidity ground. The provision preserves the exception for a later registration made in bad faith. Its application depends on the facts and evidence.
5. A checklist before choosing a mark
Does the name directly describe the product or its composition? Consider a more distinctive choice rather than assuming a decorative element solves every issue.
Have identical and similar earlier applications and registrations been searched for relevant goods and services?
Does the name have an unsuitable meaning in an export market, or conflict with someone else’s rights there?
Are domain names, social accounts and trade names available? Availability does not itself establish trademark rights.
Could the name mislead consumers about composition, origin or quality?
Will the word, logo or both be protected, and does the intended use match the filing strategy?
Has the correct legal owner been selected and ownership documented?
Sources and related reading
Industrial Property Code No. 6769, Articles 5, 6, 18, 19 and 25; TÜRKPATENT trademark information and examination guidance.
Previous part: Trademark registration, step by step.
Originally published: 3 October 2026. References reviewed: 30 October 2026. General information on Turkish law; a particular name or dispute requires a specific assessment.