Turkish Patent and Trademark Office Assumes Full Authority Over Trademark Revocation Proceedings

The Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (the Office) has officially assumed full authority to handle trademark revocation requests, following the implementation of Article 26 of the Industrial Property Code (IP Code) No. 6769. This development marks a significant transition from the previous system, where the power to revoke trademarks rested with the Intellectual Property (IP) Courts.

Under the IP Code, which came into force on January 10, 2017, the authority to revoke trademarks was transferred to the Office. However, the entry into force of Article 26, which specifically governs administrative revocation, was postponed for seven years to allow for a transition period. During this interim, Provisional Article 4 of the IP Code maintained the IP Courts’ jurisdiction over revocation matters.

With Article 26 becoming effective on January 10, 2024, interested parties were able to submit revocation requests through the Office’s online system. However, the Office was unable to begin examining these requests due to the absence of an implementing regulation.

This procedural gap was closed on March 15, 2025, when the Regulation on Amendment of the Regulation on the Implementation of the IP Code was published. The new Regulation has been met with some criticism regarding certain provisions, but it is widely regarded as a crucial step in enabling the Office to begin examining revocation requests.

According to Article 30/A-3 of the Regulation, a revocation request may be filed against either the trademark proprietor or their legal successor. Article 27/2 of the IP Code stipulates that a revocation decision takes effect from the date the request is filed, unless the applicant specifies an earlier date on which the revocation conditions were fulfilled.

The Regulation introduces a new escrow fee requirement for revocation requests filed after March 15, 2025. This fee is held in escrow until the Office issues a final decision. If the revocation request is entirely rejected, the escrow fee is paid to the trademark proprietor upon request. If the request is fully accepted, the fee is refunded to the applicant. In cases of partial acceptance, the escrow fee is retained as revenue by the Office.

For the year 2026, the escrow fee has been set at TRY 29,433.33 (approximately EUR 575 as of January 26, 2026). The application fee is also TRY 29,433.33, with an additional 20% VAT, bringing the total to TRY 35,319.996 (approximately EUR 690).

The new system allows for only one trademark to be challenged per revocation request, a departure from previous court procedures where multiple trademarks could be addressed in a single action. This change has raised concerns about potential inconsistencies in decisions and increased administrative burden for the Office, especially when multiple requests are filed against similar trademarks owned by the same applicant.

Once a revocation request is properly filed, the Office will invite the trademark proprietor to submit evidence demonstrating that the grounds for revocation are not met. The proprietor is given one month to respond, with the possibility of a one-month extension upon request. In practice, the Office does not issue an interim decision or notify the proprietor of the extension; the additional period begins from the date the extension is requested.

Non-use is the most common ground for revocation. In such cases, the trademark proprietor must provide evidence of genuine use of the trademark for the relevant goods or services, or show that non-use is justified by valid reasons. Any use initiated within three months prior to the submission of the revocation request is disregarded if it appears to be motivated by the impending request.

A technical issue was previously identified in the Office’s online system, which prevented the owner of the revocation request from accessing documents submitted by the trademark proprietor, including appeal petitions. The Office has since updated its system to resolve this problem.

If the trademark proprietor fails to submit evidence within the prescribed period, or if the evidence is deemed insufficient, the Office will grant the revocation request.

A notable amendment in the Regulation concerns non-use revocation requests. The Regulation now provides that a trademark cannot be revoked for goods or services that are identical or similar to those for which use has been proven. This provision appears intended to prevent revocation for goods or services where genuine use is established, though its application to similar goods or services remains a point of discussion.

The Office has already experienced a significant increase in workload due to pre-applications. Despite this, it has begun issuing decisions on pending revocation requests within a matter of months, signaling a new era in the administrative management of trademark rights in Turkey.