Challenging a Turkish Design Registration: Objections, Invalidity and Evidence

A Turkish design registration can be challenged through different procedures, and their deadlines must not be confused. Article 67 of Industrial Property Code No. 6769 allows third-party objections within three months after publication of registration. Article 77 provides a court action for invalidity during protection and for five years after the right ends. An ownership-recovery claim under Article 71 is a separate remedy with a different purpose.

Have a general question about this article? Ask anonymously

For a foreign brand facing a local registration of a familiar product appearance, or a manufacturer receiving a design warning, the first task is to identify the right and the remedy needed. Cancellation of an invalid right, transfer to its true owner and a defence that the accused product falls outside protection are not interchangeable. This guide explains the objection and invalidity framework and the evidence needed to use it responsibly.

Obtain the actual registration and representations

Start with the register, the published visual representations, the applicant or owner, the application and priority dates and the publication of registration. A photograph sent in a warning letter may not reproduce every registered view or indicate the precise design being asserted. Obtain the official record before commissioning the comparison.

Article 64(5) states that the product name, class and description do not determine the scope of protection arising from registration. A party should therefore not assume that a different product label alone resolves the dispute. The protected appearance and the legal comparison remain central.

Record the current status and any amendments or earlier decisions. A pending objection, a partial cancellation and an unchanged registration are different positions. Where a multiple-design filing is involved, identify the individual design numbers affected rather than treating the whole filing as one undifferentiated asset.

Article 67 has two distinct administrative deadlines

Article 67(1) of Code No. 6769 gives the applicant two months from notification to object, in writing and with reasons, to refusal of its application. This is not the period for a competitor to challenge a published registration.

Under Article 67(2), third parties have three months from publication of the design registration to submit a reasoned written objection and pay the objection fee. The statutory grounds include the specified design-definition and protection requirements, entitlement, bad faith and unauthorised use of an intellectual property right. The objection should identify the actual ground and the supporting evidence.

The three-month period starts from publication, not from the date the objector’s sales team first notices a competing product. Obtain the Bulletin record and calculate the deadline using the applicable procedural rules. Do not replace a calendar-month period with an assumed fixed number of days.

Article 67(3) requires payment and submission of the payment information within the objection period; otherwise the objection is treated as not made. A draft submission or an internal instruction to an accountant is not proof that the required procedural steps were completed. Retain the filed objection, attachments and payment record.

The administrative objection is decided on an evidential record

Article 68 provides for examination of objections by the Board. An objection to registration is sent to the applicant for observations, and the parties can be asked for further information, documents and explanations. A party that does not provide requested material within the period faces a decision on the available record.

Prepare the objection as a reasoned comparison rather than a collection of unlabelled images. Each earlier design should have a source, date and explanation of relevance. Where the challenge concerns ownership or another intellectual property right, provide the chain or right relied upon instead of assuming that visual similarity proves entitlement.

If the objection is accepted, Article 68(2) provides for invalidation of the whole or relevant part of the design registration. Partial invalidation must leave a design meeting the protection conditions while preserving its identity. The procedure is not a licence to replace the registered appearance with a different design assembled after the objection.

Article 68(3) describes the Board’s decision as final at the administrative stage. That wording should not be turned into a general statement that no judicial review exists. A party considering review of an Office decision must identify that separate action and its applicable requirements, rather than confuse it with the design-invalidity claim against the registered owner.

Novelty and individual character require different comparisons

Article 56 treats a design as new where an identical design was not made public anywhere in the world before the relevant application or priority date, with minor-detail differences insufficient to avoid identity. The evidence must establish what was actually disclosed and when. A current catalogue cannot automatically prove the contents of a catalogue said to have circulated years earlier.

Individual character concerns the overall impression on the informed user and takes the designer’s freedom into account. Counting isolated differences is not the statutory test. The comparison should explain the visual features, the product context and the constraints relevant to design freedom without inventing a percentage-change safe harbour.

Article 57 also requires attention to disclosure circumstances, including confidentiality and the specified twelve-month exception. An earlier image is not necessarily disqualifying merely because it predates filing; identify who disclosed it, under what circumstances and whether the statutory exception applies. Our design launch and disclosure guide explains those distinctions.

Preserve complete documents and authentic timestamps where available. Do not alter a historical image to make it match the challenged design. A later explanatory comparison can be useful, but it must be distinguishable from the original evidence so that the source and the analysis are not confused.

Article 77 provides the court-invalidity grounds

Article 77(1)(a) covers failure to satisfy the specified requirements in Articles 55–57 and 58(4), bad faith, the identified refusal ground in Article 64(6)(c), and unauthorised use of an intellectual property right. The petition should name the provision and facts relied upon. General dissatisfaction with a competitor’s registration is not a separate statutory ground.

Paragraph 1(b) concerns lack of true entitlement, while paragraph 1(c) addresses the specified conflict with an earlier-filed identical or similar design that was disclosed only on or after the later design’s application date. That latter chronology differs from ordinary public prior art. Keep the earlier filing and later disclosure evidence separately identified.

A registration challenged for technical-function or connection features requires the relevant Article 58 analysis. A statement that the product has a function is not enough to establish that every aspect of its appearance is excluded. Conversely, a decorative description cannot automatically turn a feature dictated by technical function into protectable appearance.

Bad faith and unauthorised use of another intellectual property right also require their own evidence. A prior commercial relationship, access to designs and the parties’ communications can be relevant, but none should be presented as conclusive without explaining the legal and factual connection. Keep allegations tied to the documents actually available.

Standing is not identical for every invalidity ground

Article 77(3) generally permits interested persons to seek invalidity, but reserves the grounds in paragraphs 1(b) and 1(c) to the earlier right holder described by the provision. A competitor’s market interest does not automatically authorise it to assert someone else’s ownership claim.

A foreign claimant should explain its own interest in the Turkish dispute and identify the relevant legal person. Parent company, local subsidiary, designer and distributor are not interchangeable. A company holding a licence may have different rights from the owner of the earlier design or the creator claiming entitlement.

Where the objective is to obtain the design rather than invalidate it, Article 71’s transfer or ownership-recognition mechanism requires separate consideration. The design ownership guide explains that route. Removing a right from the register does not automatically transfer it to the person who challenged it.

The court-action window and the correct defendant

Article 77(4) permits an invalidity action during the protection period and for five years after the right ends. That is not a five-year period beginning at registration, and it is not the three-month administrative objection period. Missing one procedure’s deadline does not, by itself, answer whether the other route remains available.

For a registered design, the action is brought against the person recorded as owner when the case is filed. Obtain a current extract rather than relying solely on the owner named in an old certificate or demand letter. Transfers and corporate changes should be reflected accurately in the pleadings.

Article 77(5) provides for judicial participation of persons recorded as holding rights over the design where written notice is given by the owner. The claimant and defendant should therefore understand the recorded interests and the notification position. A dispute can affect licensees or other holders even when they did not send the original warning.

The protection period itself must be calculated correctly. Registered and unregistered designs have different periods under Article 69. The filing strategy should identify the right actually challenged, its current status and the event from which any post-termination period is calculated.

Partial invalidity preserves identity, not a new design

Article 77(2) permits partial invalidity where the grounds affect only part of the application or registered design. The remaining part must satisfy the protection conditions and retain the design’s identity. This rule is different from the claim-based partial-invalidity wording used for patents and utility models.

A proposed partial outcome should be shown clearly in the legal and visual analysis. Explain which feature is affected, why the remaining appearance qualifies and how its identity is preserved. A commercial preference to retain some valuable portion does not replace the statutory conditions.

For a defendant or licensee, determine what remains protected after the actual decision. A partial judgment should not be described as cancellation of the entire design, and a limited surviving right should not be marketed as the original unrestricted registration. The operative result matters to later manufacture, licensing and enforcement.

Invalidity has retrospective effects, with important exceptions

Article 78 treats the protection as not having arisen where the design is invalidated, including the specified final administrative outcome under Article 67. However, the retrospective effect does not disturb the categories identified in paragraph 2: infringement judgments that were both final and executed before invalidity, and contracts concluded and performed before invalidity, subject to the preserved claims for harm caused by the owner’s bad faith.

The cumulative conditions should be retained. Do not shorten them to every earlier judgment or every signed contract. Article 78(3) permits a claim for partial or complete repayment of amounts paid under the specified contracts where equity justifies it. That is not an automatic refund of every royalty.

Under Article 78(4), a final court invalidity judgment has effect against everyone; the Office is notified, the invalidated design is removed from the register and the result is published. Article 162 requires finality before execution of the specified invalidity judgments. An initial court result, a final judgment and a completed register change are distinct milestones.

The decision file should therefore combine the procedural dates, evidence, grounds, requested relief and consequences for existing agreements. Filing an objection or action does not itself prove that the challenged design is invalid or authorise every commercial use. Report the actual procedural position rather than a predicted outcome.

Official sources

Primary provisions: Industrial Property Code No. 6769, Articles 56–58, 64, 67–69, 71, 77–78 and 162. Official legislation links are available in the TÜRKPATENT legislation directory. This English explanation is not an official translation or a prediction of the outcome of a particular objection or case.

Istanbul and Mersin offices

Bakırcı & Keskin Law Office is Mersin-based and works throughout Türkiye with an Istanbul and Mersin focus.

Istanbul — Polaris Plaza

Maslak Ahi Evran Caddesi, Polaris Plaza No:21, Floor 9, 34475 Sarıyer/İstanbul. Istanbul office directions.

Mersin — Profit İş Merkezi

İhsaniye Mahallesi, 4903. Sokak, Profit İş Merkezi No:23, Floor 3, Office 14, 33070 Akdeniz/Mersin. Mersin office directions.

Call +90 552 224 43 66. An enquiry does not establish representation or suspend a legal deadline.