FAQs on Trademark Invalidation Actions in Turkey

A trademark invalidation action is a court proceeding brought before the competent IP court to have a registered trademark declared invalid from the outset. Unlike cancellation, which is handled administratively before TÜRKPATENT, invalidation is a judicial process governed by Articles 25 and 27 of the Industrial Property Code No. 6769. If successful, the trademark is deemed never to have existed.

An invalidation action may be filed by any interested party, by public prosecutors, or by relevant public institutions and organisations. There is no requirement to be a direct competitor — any party with a legitimate interest in having the trademark declared invalid may bring the action.

The action must be filed against the person recorded as the trademark owner in the register at the date of the lawsuit, or against their legal successors. Importantly, TÜRKPATENT is not named as a party in invalidation proceedings.

A trademark may be invalidated if it was registered in breach of the absolute grounds for refusal set out in Article 5, or the relative grounds for refusal set out in Article 6. Absolute grounds include lack of distinctive character, descriptiveness, deceptive nature, and conflict with public order or morality, among others. Relative grounds include likelihood of confusion with an earlier mark, bad faith, and conflict with prior rights such as trade names, personal names, or intellectual property rights.

Absolute grounds relate to the inherent characteristics of the mark itself — for example, whether it is distinctive, descriptive, or contrary to public policy. These can be raised by any interested party. Relative grounds relate to conflicts with prior third-party rights — such as an earlier registered trademark or an unregistered sign already in use in trade. Relative grounds are typically invoked by the holder of the earlier right.

Yes, but with an important limitation. If a trademark was registered in breach of the distinctiveness requirements under Article 5(1)(b), (c), or (d), but has since acquired distinctive character through use in relation to the relevant goods or services before the invalidation request was filed, it cannot be invalidated on those grounds. Acquired distinctiveness through use can therefore serve as a defence against an invalidation claim.

Yes. If the grounds for invalidation apply only to some of the goods or services covered by the registration, the court will declare a partial invalidation limited to those goods or services. However, a court cannot issue an invalidation decision that would alter the trademark itself.

Under Article 25(6), if a trademark owner was aware — or should have been aware — that a later-filed trademark was being used, and remained silent for five consecutive years without taking action, they lose the right to seek invalidation of that later mark on the basis of their earlier trademark. This rule does not apply, however, if the later trademark was registered in bad faith.

Yes. In invalidation actions based on relative grounds under Article 6(1), the defendant may invoke the non-use defence under Article 19(2). This allows the defendant to request that the claimant prove genuine use of their earlier trademark in Türkiye during the five-year period preceding the filing date or priority date of the challenged trademark. If the claimant cannot demonstrate genuine use — or justified reasons for non-use — the invalidation claim will be rejected. If use is proven only for some goods or services, the action will be assessed only in relation to those goods or services.

Under Article 27, an invalidation decision takes effect retroactively from the filing date of the trademark application. This means the protection conferred by the trademark is deemed never to have arisen. This is a key distinction from cancellation, which generally takes effect only from the date the cancellation request was filed.

The retroactive effect of an invalidation decision does not affect two categories of prior acts: final court judgments that were issued and enforced before the invalidation decision in infringement proceedings based on the mark, and contracts concluded and performed before the decision. However, where a contract has been performed, equitable restitution of payments made under it may still be sought. These exceptions do not apply where the trademark owner acted with gross negligence or bad faith.

A final invalidation decision has erga omnes effect — meaning it is binding on everyone, not just the parties to the proceedings. Once the decision becomes final, the court sends it to TÜRKPATENT of its own motion, and the trademark is removed from the register and the decision is published in the Official Trademark Bulletin.

Invalidation and cancellation are two distinct legal mechanisms. Invalidation is a court-based procedure that challenges the validity of a trademark from the moment of registration, on the basis that it should never have been registered. Cancellation, by contrast, is an administrative procedure before TÜRKPATENT that addresses events occurring after registration — such as non-use, genericism, or deceptive use. An invalidation decision has retroactive effect, whereas a cancellation decision generally takes effect from the date of the request.

Once either an invalidation or cancellation decision becomes final, the trademark is removed from the register and the outcome is published in the Official Trademark Bulletin. In the case of invalidation, the court transmits the final decision to TÜRKPATENT automatically, without any action required by the parties.