Introduction
Trademark owners in Turkey have long relied on the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (TÜRKPATENT) for the protection and enforcement of their intellectual property rights. However, the protracted absence of an operative administrative cancellation mechanism—despite its legal basis under the Industrial Property Code—created a prolonged period of procedural uncertainty.
The recent enactment of the Regulation Amending the Regulation on the Implementation of the Industrial Property Code, published in the Official Gazette dated March 15, 2025 (No. 32842), finally activates the administrative trademark cancellation system under Article 26 of the Industrial Property Code No. 6769 (SMK). This significant regulatory shift marks a long-awaited development in trademark enforcement practice.
Legal Framework: From Dormancy to Activation
While Article 26 of the SMK had introduced the concept of administrative cancellation as early as 2017, the implementing regulations remained silent on operational procedures for nearly eight years. This legislative vacuum prevented the practical application of administrative cancellation, even after the provision became enforceable on January 10, 2024.
The 2025 amendment addresses this deficiency comprehensively. Pursuant to newly introduced Article 30/A, trademark cancellation requests may now be filed directly with TÜRKPATENT. The Regulation clearly outlines the procedural requirements for filing, evaluating, and adjudicating cancellation requests, including the use of standardized forms, defined evidentiary obligations, and a two-component official fee system consisting of both a base fee and a deposit.
Procedural Innovations and the Deposit Mechanism
One of the most notable innovations is the implementation of a deposit-based fee structure under Article 30/B. The cancellation fee is now composed of two separate items, paid simultaneously upon submission:
- A non-refundable institutional fee payable to TÜRKPATENT, and
- A refundable deposit amount, the disposition of which depends on the outcome of the cancellation request.
The disposition of the deposit is determined as follows:
- If the cancellation request is entirely rejected, the deposit is returned to the trademark owner,
- If the request is fully accepted, the deposit is refunded to the requesting party,
- In the event of partial acceptance, the deposit is retained as institutional revenue by TÜRKPATENT.
This framework is designed to deter bad-faith or speculative applications, ensuring that only substantiated claims proceed. Furthermore, any deposit not claimed within ten years of the final decision is forfeited to the institution. The economic consequence of partial acceptance also serves as a cautionary reminder to applicants: requests should be carefully tailored to the scope and substance of the contested trademark.
Streamlined Procedure and Evidentiary Obligations
The regulation mandates that all cancellation requests must be:
- Filed electronically,
- Directed at one single registered trademark, and
- Accompanied by clearly stated legal grounds, consistent with the relevant paragraphs and subparagraphs of Article 26 of the SMK.
Trademark owners are granted a one-month period (with a potential one-month extension) to submit counter-statements and supporting evidence. For non-use cancellations under Article 26/1(a), the applicant must prove that the trademark has not been used for a continuous period of five years in Turkey. The regulation explicitly excludes any use that occurs within the three months prior to the cancellation request if intended solely to forestall the proceeding.
Critically, any evidence not submitted within the prescribed timeframe is deemed inadmissible, reflecting the applicant’s intent to promote procedural discipline and certainty.
Interplay Between Cancellation Proceedings and Appeal Strategy
The activation of the administrative cancellation system has created a direct interface between the appeals against provisional refusals brought by trademark owners against TURKPATENT’s decisions and pending cancellation proceedings, necessitating a strategic reevaluation of procedural coordination.
Previously, the validity of a cited trademark could only be contested through judicial action. Now, with administrative cancellation fully functional under TÜRKPATENT’s jurisdiction, the institution faces an imperative to internally harmonize its proceedings, particularly when a mark cited in an appeal against provisional refusal is simultaneously under cancellation review.
Suspension of Appeal Against Provisional Refusal as a Procedural Imperative
Where an appeal against provisional refusal is based on a trademark that is subject to a pending cancellation request, the appeal proceeding itself should be suspended and treated as a prejudicial issue until the outcome of the cancellation is determined. Failure to suspend the appeal evaluation risks producing internally inconsistent outcomes—such as sustaining an appeal against provisional refusal grounded on a trademark that may soon be invalidated.
Strategic Considerations for Trademark Owners and Applicants
In light of the revised framework, stakeholders must adapt their litigation and portfolio management strategies:
- Applicants who have received refusals may now file administrative cancellation requests to neutralize the legal basis of the earlier conflicting trademark.
- Trademark owners must maintain a demonstrable record of trademark use and prepare timely, complete responses to cancellation challenges.
- Legal counsel should coordinate the timing of cancellation requests and appeals against provisional refusals of TURKPATENT decisions, ensuring that arguments and evidence are aligned and strategically prioritized.
Institutional clarity on the sequencing and interplay of these procedures will be essential in ensuring predictability and procedural integrity.
Conclusion
The implementation of Turkey’s administrative trademark cancellation system represents a decisive step toward a procedurally coherent trademark enforcement framework, as long awaited. The integration of a deposit mechanism introduces financial discipline into cancellation practice, effectively deterring opportunistic filings and rewarding good-faith claims.
Going forward, TÜRKPATENT’s approach to the interrelation between cancellation and appeal against provisional refusal proceedings will be critical. Suspending appeal evaluations in light of pending cancellation cases is no longer optional—it has become essential to safeguard consistency, procedural justice, and stakeholder confidence.
Applicants and rights holders alike must carefully evaluate the scope, timing, and evidentiary foundation of cancellation requests. A poorly formulated or overly broad claim may result in only partial acceptance—triggering the forfeiture of the deposit, which carries tangible economic implications.
As Turkey aligns its trademark regime with international best practices, this reform signals not merely administrative evolution, but a deeper institutional commitment to legal certainty, market fairness, and the rule of law. In this evolving landscape, the guidance of experienced professionals with deep domain knowledge is not just advisable—it is indispensable.
Author: Kuzey Güçlü
Turkey
