Trademark opposition proceedings in Türkiye provide an effective administrative mechanism for preventing the registration of conflicting trademarks at an early stage. Conducted before the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (TÜRKPATENT), opposition proceedings are widely used by rights holders to protect their brands without resorting to court litigation.

This article outlines the procedural framework, legal grounds and practical aspects of trademark opposition in Türkiye.

Publication and opposition period

Once a trademark application passes the initial examination by TÜRKPATENT, it is published in the Official Trademark Bulletin. From the date of publication, third parties have a non-extendable two-month period to file an opposition.

Failure to oppose within this period generally results in the application proceeding to registration, making subsequent challenges more complex, time-consuming and costly.

Who can file an opposition?

Opposition may be filed by:

  • Owners of earlier trademark rights
  • Licensees (if duly authorised)
  • Owners of well-known marks
  • Any interested party relying on absolute grounds (e.g. bad faith)

The opponent must rely on legally recognised grounds and, where applicable, demonstrate a legitimate interest.

Grounds for opposition

Oppositions in Türkiye may be based on absolute grounds and/or relative grounds under the Turkish Industrial Property Code (Law No. 6769 ).

Absolute grounds

Absolute grounds relate to the intrinsic characteristics of the sign itself. These grounds are examined ex officio by TÜRKPATENT and may also be invoked by any third party, regardless of prior rights.

In essence, absolute grounds determine whether a sign is eligible for trademark protection.

Under Article 5 , the main absolute grounds include:

  • Signs that cannot constitute a trademark according to definition under Article 4 of the IPL.
  • Lack of distinctive character
  • Descriptive signs indicating characteristics (e.g. type, quality, origin)
  • Signs identical or indistinguishably similar to earlier marks for identical goods/services
  • Signs commonly used in trade
  • Shapes resulting from the nature of the goods or necessary for a technical result
  • Deceptive signs (e.g. misleading as to origin or quality)
  • Signs prohibited under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention
  • Signs of public interest (e.g. historical or cultural symbols without authorization)
  • Signs containing religious values or symbols
  • Signs contrary to public order or morality
  • Signs consisting of or containing registered geographical indications

Exception:
Signs that have acquired distinctiveness through use may overcome certain absolute grounds.

Relative grounds

Relative grounds are based on conflicts with earlier rights and are examined only upon opposition by the right holder.

In other words, relative grounds aim to protect existing trademark rights and market position.

Under Article 6 , the main relative grounds include:

  • Likelihood of confusion with an earlier trademark (including association)
  • Unauthorized applications by agents or representatives
  • Conflict with earlier unregistered rights or prior use
  • Conflict with well-known trademarks under Article 6bis Paris Convention (only limited to the identical or simialr goods applied for)
  • Trademarks with reputation in Türkiye (dilution or unfair advantage) (including all the goods or services applied for)
  • Conflict with personal rights or other IP rights (name, trade name, copyright, etc.)
  • Conflict with collective or guarantee marks after non-renewal (3-year protection)
  • Conflict with expired trademarks (2-year protection, subject to use) (see Trademark Renewals in Türkiye )
  • Bad faith applications (see Bad Faith Trademark Filings in Türkiye: Key Rules )

Trademark opposition procedures are governed primarily by Articles 18 and 19 of the Industrial Property Code.

Filing of opposition (Article 18 )

  • Oppositions must be filed within the two-month period following publication
  • The opposition must be:
    • Filed in writing, and
    • Supported by grounds and evidence

❗ If the grounds are not submitted within the deadline, the opposition is deemed not filed.
❗ Payment of the official opposition fee within the same period is mandatory.

Examination of opposition (Article 19 )

  • TÜRKPATENT notifies the applicant and invites observations
  • The Office may request additional information or documents
  • If no response is filed, the decision is made based on the existing file

Proof of use

  • If the earlier mark is registered for more than 5 years, the applicant may request proof of use
  • The opponent must prove genuine use in Türkiye
    • If use is proven only partially → the opposition is limited accordingly
    • If use is not proven → the opposition is rejected

Amicable settlement

  • The Office may encourage settlement between the parties (very rare)
  • Mediation may be applied in accordance with Turkish law

Decision and appeal

TÜRKPATENT issues a reasoned decision either:

  • Accepting the opposition (fully or partially), or
  • Rejecting the opposition

Decisions may be appealed before the Re-examination and Evaluation Board (REEB) of TÜRKPATENT within two months from notification.

Further action, namely “revocation action”, may be taken against the appeal decision before the specialised Intellectual Property Courts in the capital city Ankara.

Practical considerations

Trademark opposition proceedings in Türkiye are relatively efficient and cost-effective. However, their success depends on timely action and strategic preparation.

Key recommendations include:

  • Monitoring trademark publications through watch services
  • Acting promptly within the non-extendable two-month period
  • Submitting complete arguments and evidence at the time of filing
  • Preparing strong evidence of use, where required
  • Considering settlement or coexistence agreements where appropriate

Conclusion

Trademark opposition is a critical tool for brand protection in Türkiye, allowing rights holders to block conflicting applications before they mature into registrations. Given the strict deadlines and evidentiary requirements, timely and well-structured action is essential.

A well-prepared opposition not only protects existing rights but also strengthens the overall trademark portfolio in a competitive marketplace.