Trademark Opposition in Türkiye: Grounds and Deadlines

The Two Months That Govern Everything

TÜRKPATENT — the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office — examines every application on absolute grounds first. If nothing blocks it at that stage, the application is published in the Official Trademark Bulletin (Resmî Marka Bülteni). Publication is the moment the clock starts.

Under Article 18(1) of the Industrial Property Law No. 6769, an opposition (itiraz) must be filed within two months of publication. The period is preclusive (hak düşürücü süre): it cannot be extended, and the Office cannot forgive it on equitable grounds, however good the explanation. An opposition arriving after the period has run is not a late opposition; in law it is no opposition at all.

Two formalities are as decisive as the date. The opposition must be filed with its grounds and reasons, and the opposition fee must be paid — with proof of payment reaching the Office — within the same two months. An opposition whose fee is not paid in time is treated as never filed.

Foreign owners lose this window more often than they lose the argument, because the two months run from a Turkish-language bulletin that nobody is obliged to send you. A standing watch service and a docket that treats the bulletin date, rather than the date the news reached your head office, as day one is the practical safeguard. The filing side of the same timetable is set out in our note on trademark registration in Türkiye.

Absolute Grounds and Relative Grounds Are Not the Same Argument

Law No. 6769 keeps two categories of objection apart, and the distinction decides who carries the burden.

Absolute grounds (mutlak ret nedenleri) are in Article 5. They concern the sign itself rather than anyone’s prior rights: signs that cannot function as a trademark, marks devoid of distinctive character, purely descriptive signs, signs that have become customary in the trade, shapes resulting from the nature of the goods or necessary to obtain a technical result, deceptive signs, State emblems protected under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention, signs contrary to public order or accepted principles of morality, and signs consisting of or containing a registered geographical indication. The Office applies these on its own motion.

One of them looks relative but is not. Article 5(1)(ç) — identity or indistinguishable similarity with an earlier registered mark or earlier-dated application covering the same goods or services — is raised by the examiner without any opposition. It can be overcome by a notarised letter of consent (muvafakatname) from the earlier right holder under Article 5(3).

Relative grounds (nispi ret nedenleri) are in Article 6. They protect earlier private rights, and the Office will not raise them on your behalf. If nobody opposes, an application that conflicts with your mark will proceed to registration. An opposition may rely on either category or both, but the absolute-ground limb is usually the weaker half: the examiner has already considered those points once and let the application through.

What Article 6 Actually Covers

The relative grounds are a closed list, and an opposition is only as strong as the sub-paragraph it fits. The provisions most often relied on are these.

• Article 6(1) — likelihood of confusion (karıştırılma ihtimali). Identity or similarity of the signs together with identity or similarity of the goods or services, such that the public may be confused, including the likelihood of association. This is the backbone of most oppositions.
• Article 6(2) — filings by an agent or representative. An application made in the name of a commercial agent or representative without the proprietor’s authorisation and without justification. Owners who work through Turkish distributors should read this alongside our commercial contracts and distribution practice.
• Article 6(3) — earlier unregistered rights. A sign used in trade before the application or priority date of the opposed mark, where that use confers a right to prohibit later use.
• Article 6(4) — well-known marks within the meaning of Article 6bis of the Paris Convention.
• Article 6(5) — marks with a reputation in Türkiye, where use of the later mark would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark, including for dissimilar goods or services.
• Article 6(6) — other earlier rights, such as a personal name, photograph, copyright or another industrial property right.
• Article 6(9) — bad faith (kötüniyet).

Each limb has its own evidentiary demands. Reputation under Article 6(5) is proved with market data and sustained commercial presence in Türkiye; bad faith is rarely established by assertion alone.

The Proof of Use Defence: Article 19(2)

This is the provision that quietly decides more oppositions than any doctrine of similarity.

Where an opposition is based on Article 6(1), and the mark relied on has been registered in Türkiye for at least five years as at the application or priority date of the opposed application, the applicant may request that the opponent prove use. The opponent must then show genuine use (ciddi kullanım) in Türkiye of the earlier mark, for the goods or services relied on, within the five-year period preceding that application or priority date — or show proper reasons for non-use.

The consequences are strict. If use is not proven, the opposition is rejected. If use is proven for only some of the goods or services, the examination proceeds only on that narrower basis, which often converts a comprehensive opposition into a marginal one.

In practice this reverses the psychology of the case. An opponent with a broad but lightly used registration arrives expecting to argue about similarity and instead spends the case assembling invoices, catalogues, dated packaging and advertising spend. Defensive registrations covering entire classes are especially exposed, and the exposure now runs further: non-use has also become a route to administrative cancellation, as discussed in our note on the 2025 administrative cancellation regime.

The defence is not automatic. The applicant must request it within the period allowed for responding to the opposition; a request raised later, or raised in general terms, may not be taken up. Owners relying on older Turkish registrations should audit their evidence before opposing, not after being asked. This is ordinary intellectual property practice housekeeping and it is best done in calm conditions.

How TÜRKPATENT Decides

An opposition is first examined by the Trademarks Department. The Office notifies the opposition to the applicant, who has one month to submit its observations under Article 19(1); this is also where a proof of use request belongs. The opponent may be given an opportunity to reply and, where proof of use is requested, a period to file evidence.

The examination is conducted on the documents. There is no hearing, no oral advocacy and no cross-examination, so the written submission is the case. Length is not persuasion: what carries weight is a clear comparison of signs and of the goods and services as they appear in the register, supported by evidence that is dated, Turkish-market specific and capable of being read quickly.

The Law also allows the Office to encourage the parties to reach an agreement, with the mediation legislation applying to any such process. Co-existence arrangements and limitations of the specification resolve a fair number of disputes before a decision is needed, and they are worth considering early rather than after positions have hardened.

The Department’s decision may be appealed to the Re-examination and Evaluation Board (Yeniden İnceleme ve Değerlendirme Kurulu, YİDK) within two months of notification, under Article 20. The Board is the Office’s final internal instance: its decision closes the administrative stage and is the act that any subsequent court action attacks.

Foreign Owners Must Act Through a Registered Attorney

Article 160 of Law No. 6769 requires persons without a domicile in Türkiye to act before TÜRKPATENT through a registered trademark attorney (marka vekili). This is not a formality that can be cured later: procedural steps taken outside it will not be recognised, and the two-month opposition period does not pause while the point is sorted out.

Two practical consequences follow. First, the power of attorney should be in place before the bulletin is watched, not after a conflicting mark appears. Second, the attorney of record should be someone who can also see the litigation stage coming, because the arguments made in the opposition constrain what can sensibly be argued in court later.

Group structures deserve attention here. Where the Turkish registration sits with a local subsidiary while the trading reputation belongs to the parent, the opponent’s identity, the chain of title and the entity whose use is evidenced under Article 19(2) need to line up. Sorting this out is as much a corporate law exercise as a trademark one, and it is far easier before a deadline is running.

Court Review Before the Ankara Civil IP Courts

A decision of the Re-examination and Evaluation Board may be challenged by an action to set it aside, brought within two months of notification of the decision. Under Article 156 of Law No. 6769, actions against decisions of the Office fall to the Civil Courts for Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights (Fikri ve Sınai Haklar Hukuk Mahkemesi) in Ankara, whatever the parties’ places of business. Cases from these courts proceed on appeal through the regional courts of appeal (bölge adliye mahkemesi) and then, where available, to the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay).

The action is directed at the Office, and where the Board’s decision favoured the other side, that party is ordinarily joined as well. Turkish practice relies heavily on court-appointed expert panels (bilirkişi), so the case tends to be won or lost on how the technical comparison is framed in the pleadings.

Two practical points are worth settling at the outset with our trademark litigation and commercial dispute resolution team. First, whether the opposed mark proceeds to registration while the action is pending, and what that means for enforcement in the meantime. Second, whether an opposition is even the right instrument: invalidity and non-use cancellation remain available afterwards, and in some cases a negotiated limitation of the specification achieves more than two years of proceedings would.

A Workable Sequence for a Foreign Owner

The order of operations matters more than the eloquence of any single filing.

Before anything else, put a bulletin watch in place for your marks and your principal transliterations in Turkish, and make sure alerts land with someone who has authority to instruct. The commonest failure is not a wrong decision but an unopened notification.

When a conflicting application appears, verify two dates immediately: the bulletin publication date, which fixes the deadline, and the registration date of your own Turkish mark, which determines whether you are exposed to a proof of use request under Article 19(2). If your registration is more than five years old, assemble the use evidence at the same time as you draft the opposition, not when the request arrives.

Decide the grounds narrowly. An opposition built on Article 6(1) with a clean comparison usually reads better than one that also asserts reputation and bad faith without evidence for either. Weak limbs invite the Office to treat the whole opposition as overstated.

Finally, treat the opposition as the first step of a sequence that may run through the Board and the Ankara courts. Positions taken now on the scope of your goods and services, and on the extent of your use, will be quoted back to you later. Considered advice on intellectual property strategy at the outset is materially cheaper than repositioning after a decision.

---

Related Practice Areas

• Intellectual Property
• Trademark Registration & Litigation
• Patent Litigation
• Copyright & Anti-Piracy