Proof of Trademark Use in Turkey: Opposition, Invalidity and Infringement Defences

An older Turkish trademark registration does not always establish an effective basis for blocking a later application or winning an infringement case without evidence of use. Articles 19(2), 25(7) and 29(2) of Industrial Property Code No. 6769 provide different proof-of-use mechanisms. The relevant five-year period depends on the procedure and its reference date. A foreign brand owner should therefore organise Turkish use evidence before relying on the registration in a dispute.

Have a general question about this article? Ask anonymously

This guide addresses proof of use in opposition, invalidity and infringement proceedings. It does not treat those procedural defences as an automatic revocation of the trademark. The distinction matters to both sides: the owner must understand what use needs to be proved, while an applicant or defendant must identify the statutory mechanism it is invoking rather than simply allege that the brand is inactive.

Article 9 defines the underlying use requirement

Article 9(1) of Code No. 6769 concerns a trademark not genuinely used in Turkey for its registered goods or services within five years from registration, without justified reason, or whose use has been interrupted continuously for five years. Registration, genuine use and justified non-use are therefore separate issues.

The statute does not say that merely renewing the registration proves use. Renewal preserves the register position under its own rules; invoices, product presentation and service activity address what happened in commerce. A brand can remain on the register while its ability to support a particular objection or claim requires additional proof.

For an international group, distinguish use abroad from use relevant to the Turkish requirement. Worldwide reputation, foreign turnover and overseas advertising may provide context, but they do not automatically establish the particular Turkish use required by the provision. The evidence should identify territory, date, sign and goods or services rather than rely on global totals.

Some variations, export activity and authorised use count

Article 9(2)(a) recognises use with different elements that do not alter the trademark’s distinctive character. A change in presentation therefore requires a substantive comparison, not an automatic conclusion that every variation defeats proof or that any modernised logo is acceptable. Preserve the registered representation and the versions actually used.

Article 9(2)(b) also recognises affixing the trademark to goods or packaging solely for export. The file must establish the relevant activity, not simply show that a foreign affiliate exported products from another country. Production and packaging records should connect the sign, goods and dates to the use relied upon.

Under Article 9(3), use with the owner’s permission counts as use by the owner. A Turkish licensee’s or authorised business partner’s records can therefore be important. Identify the permission and the person using the mark, instead of assuming that every unrelated reseller’s activity proves the same legal fact.

These rules explain why the ownership and licensing file should accompany the commercial evidence. A company should be able to show why another entity’s transactions are relevant to its mark. The licensee enforcement guide addresses the separate question of who may bring proceedings; permission-based use and standing to sue are not identical.

Opposition: the reference date is the later application or priority

Article 19(2) applies to an opposition based on Article 6(1), the specified earlier-mark conflict ground. At the later application’s filing or priority date, the opponent’s mark must have been registered for at least five years for this proof-of-use mechanism to arise. Do not assess that threshold only by the date the opposition happens to be filed.

On the applicant’s request, the opponent must prove genuine Turkish use during the five years preceding the later application or priority date for the goods or services relied upon, or show justified reasons for non-use. The evidence window is therefore anchored to that earlier procedural reference date, not automatically to the latest five calendar years.

If the opponent cannot establish the required matters, Article 19(2) provides for rejection of the opposition. If use is shown only for some registered goods or services, the opposition is examined only on the basis of the goods or services for which use is proved. A registration covering many classes does not eliminate that limitation.

The provision is request-based. An applicant should not assume the Office will invoke the mechanism automatically without a proper procedural request. The request, the Office’s direction and the response deadline must be tracked in the actual file. This guide does not replace the applicable procedural requirements with an invented universal submission period.

The opponent’s chosen legal ground matters

Article 19(2) expressly concerns an opposition under Article 6(1). Other Article 6 grounds, such as the specified agent filing or bad-faith application, have their own elements. A proof-of-use request should not be treated as automatically disposing of every separate ground the opponent has pleaded.

Read the opposition as filed. Identify the earlier registrations, goods and services, legal grounds and requested outcome. A successful challenge to one registration’s evidential basis may leave another ground requiring determination. Conversely, an opponent should not relabel an unsupported likelihood-of-confusion claim merely to avoid the statutory use inquiry.

Our agent-filed trademark guide explains one distinct relative-ground route. The comparison is useful because the same commercial dispute can contain ownership, authority and earlier-use issues without those issues becoming legally interchangeable.

Invalidity litigation can require two separate use windows

Article 25(7) makes Article 19(2) available as a defence in invalidity actions brought under Article 6(1). For the initial assessment, the five-year period is determined by reference to the filing date of the invalidity action. The defendant must identify the defence and the relevant earlier mark rather than assume that an old registration is automatically unusable.

The same paragraph creates an additional inquiry. If the claimant’s mark had already been registered for at least five years at the challenged mark’s application or priority date, the claimant must also prove the specified use at that earlier reference point or establish justified reasons for non-use. A single recent sales period may therefore be insufficient to address both statutory windows.

Prepare two clearly labelled timelines where both apply. One should relate to the action date; the other to the challenged application’s filing or priority date. Do not combine documents from widely separated years into an undifferentiated bundle and call it five years of use. Explain which document supports which window.

This defence concerns the basis for the invalidity claim. It does not itself establish that the defendant owns an unchallengeable mark or that the claimant’s registration has already been removed. Other grounds, procedural issues and any separate revocation request require their own analysis.

Infringement litigation uses the action date

Article 29(2) provides that Article 19(2) can be raised as a defence in trademark infringement actions. For calculating the five-year use period, the statute expressly uses the date the infringement action is brought. A brand owner should therefore not assume that evidence prepared for an earlier Office opposition will necessarily address the litigation window.

The defendant’s alleged acts and the claimant’s proof of use are separate parts of the case. Even where the defence is available, the parties should identify the mark, registered goods or services and conduct complained of. A general statement that the claimant has no shop in Turkey is not a complete legal or evidential answer.

Likewise, the claimant should not confuse evidence of the defendant’s sales with evidence of its own authorised use. Photographs of allegedly infringing products can support one issue while proving nothing about the claimant’s use during the statutory period. Keep those evidential sections separate.

An interim application or a warning letter is not the same as the filing date of the main infringement action. Identify the actual procedural record before calculating the period. The statutory use defence and any request for urgent measures should be analysed together without treating either as an automatic final judgment.

Build evidence around the sign, goods, place and time

Invoices should identify the commercial goods or services and be connected to the trademark relied upon. An invoice using only an internal product code may need accompanying catalogues, packaging records or other evidence explaining that code. A large turnover figure without a connection to the mark and the relevant goods does not answer every required question.

Advertising, catalogues, website records and photographs can demonstrate different aspects of use. Preserve dates, distribution or audience information where available and the actual material shown. A screenshot taken today is not automatically proof that the same page existed throughout an earlier five-year period.

For services, identify the service activity rather than relying solely on a logo displayed on stationery. Contracts, invoices and records of the relevant service provision can help establish the relationship between the mark and the registered services. The evidence must be genuine and lawfully obtained, not reconstructed to create a history that did not occur.

Export-related use should be documented with the activity recognised by Article 9(2)(b), including the application of the mark to goods or packaging. Authorised third-party use should be connected to the permission under Article 9(3). A single evidence index can show the date, territory, goods or services, sign version and legal relevance of each item.

Justified non-use and partial use require precise submissions

The statutes recognise justified reasons for non-use, but they do not state that every commercial difficulty qualifies. Identify the obstacle, its duration, its connection to the relevant goods or services and the supporting documents. A general explanation that the company was busy elsewhere does not establish the statutory justification without further analysis.

Separate lack of use from inability to locate records. A company may have traded but lost access to evidence after a distributor change; that is an evidential problem requiring investigation, not proof that a legal justification for non-use exists. Preserve historical records when terminating licences or changing accounting systems.

Where use covers only part of the registration, map the evidence to those goods or services candidly. Article 19(2) expressly limits examination accordingly. Do not claim that a sale of one product proves use for every unrelated item listed in the same class, and do not assume class labels alone determine similarity.

Prepare the portfolio before a dispute begins

Maintain a periodic evidence archive organised by trademark and registered goods or services. Preserve original records, authorisations and dated representations, with translations where needed for the proceeding. This practical recommendation does not impose a new statutory filing duty; it reduces the risk of discovering missing evidence only after a response deadline begins.

The registration guide and trademark clearance guide address different portfolio tasks. A complete decision should identify the procedural route, the five-year threshold, each relevant evidence window and the goods or services actually supported. Registration is the starting record, not a substitute for the use analysis required by the particular dispute.

Check the evidence windows before selecting exhibits

For each earlier registration, prepare a separate date sheet showing its registration date, the later application or priority date and, if litigation has begun, the actual filing date. State why the five-year threshold is met in that particular proceeding. The reference date should come from the official record, not a reminder email or the date a commercial team first noticed the competing product. If several marks support the same opposition, do not assume their registration histories are identical.

Next, connect every exhibit to the relevant registered item and period. Identify the original issuer, the mark as displayed, the transaction or advertising activity and the geographical connection. Where the same document supports both litigation windows, explain how its date and contents do so. Where it supports only one window, label that limitation. A clear index makes an honest evidential gap visible early enough to investigate, rather than disguising it with a large volume of unrelated material.

Official sources

Primary provisions: Industrial Property Code No. 6769, Articles 9, 19(2), 25(7) and 29(2). The TÜRKPATENT legislation directory provides official legislation and implementing-rule links. This English explanation is not an official translation or a finding that any particular evidence establishes genuine use.