Turkey: Letters of consent under the Turkish Industrial Property Code

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Turkey: Letters of consent under the Turkish Industrial Property Code

Unlike many countries, Turkish trade mark law has had a rule since 1995 that a senior trade mark registration or application identical or indistinguishably similar to a junior trade mark application can be raised as an absolute ground for refusal if the goods/services are also identical or of the same type. The Turkish Industrial Property Code (the IP Code), which entered into force on January 10 2017, softened this rule, and in cases where an applicant submits a notarised document to the Trademark Office indicating that the owner of the prior registration agrees to the registration of the trade mark application that is identical or indistinguishably similar to a senior trade mark or trade mark application, then the junior application cannot be rejected on this ground.

This provision has widely been considered as a positive development for applicants seeking registration for new trade marks, whose applications were rejected due to the existence of senior trade marks that were registered for a long time but not in use.

In practice, in some instances, where the owners of senior trade marks are serious and legitimate businesses, this new provision has helped and the letter of consent mechanism has worked well. However, some opportunistic senior trade mark owners have started to use this provision as a tool for asking for unreasonable amounts of money from the applicants for giving the letter of consent, even if they do not use the trade marks. The only alternative to putting pressure on the owners of unused trade marks is filing a revocation action due to non-use before the IP courts. However, this does not really answer the needs of businesses who want to obtain the trade mark registration in a smooth and quick way, since court actions are usually lengthy and expensive. The solution to this problem lies in the IP Code. Pursuant to Articles 26 and 192, the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (the office) will have the authority to process the application demanding revocation of trade marks due to non-use starting from January 2024.

We think that the positive effect of this new provision will be seen once the revocation demands due to non-use begin to be heard by the office. Until then, businesses may continue to have a hard time registering their trade marks due to unused trade marks blocking registration.

Uğur Aktekin

Pınar Arıkan


Gün + PartnersKore Şehitleri Cad. 17Zincirlikuyu 34394İstanbul, TurkeyTel: + (90) (212) 354 00 00Fax: + (90) (212) 274 20 95gun@gun.av.trgun.av.tr

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Andrea Stone explains how her in-house experience gives her a unique perspective, and why Ballard Spahr’s combination with Lane Powell made it an ideal time to join
The pair had been fighting in multiple jurisdictions but have agreed to settle all litigation
Law firms may try to relate PTAB briefs to broader economic concerns in response to the USPTO’s latest guidance
IP Inclusive’s 10-year celebration provides reasons to be positive in the face of troubling attacks against DEI initiatives
Microsoft allegedly uses the HEVC technology in a range of products and offers an extension as an add-on
A group of five lawyers who joined Cleary Gottlieb say they want to help expand the firm’s IP litigation practice
As we build up to another busy year for the IP STARS rankings and our Managing IP Awards, we assess some of the major IP firms and trends in Germany
Florina Firaru discusses making new connections, the art of flower arranging, and the biggest misconception about IP
The firm, which appointed three IP partners from A&O Shearman, wants to develop a tier one practice in Europe
The England and Wales appeals court handed down its judgment just seven working days after hearing the trademark dispute involving pharma company Merck
Gift this article