The Constitutional Court has ruled that Article 42/1-c of Decree Law no. 556 on the Protection of Trademarks (the Trademark Decree Law) is contrary to the provisions of the Turkish Constitution.
In general, Article 42 sets out the grounds for the cancellation of a trademark. Article 42/1-c refers to Article 14, in which the obligation to use a trademark is regulated. In line with this obligation if, within a period of five years from registration, the trademark has not been used without a justifiable reason or if use has been ceased for an uninterrupted period of five years, the trademark shall be invalidated.
As we reviewed the background of the Constitutional Court’s decision, we found that Article 42/1-c was brought to the attention of the Constitutional Court by the 4th Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights Civil Court’s judge.
In the dispute, examined by the first instance court, the plaintiff had asserted that the respondent’s trademark constituted trademark infringement. Therefore, the plaintiff requested the cessation of the infringement, monetary and moral damages and the cancellation of the respondent’s trademark. As a counter-action, the respondent requested the cancellation of the plaintiff’s trademark based on non-use.
The rest of this article is locked for subscribers only. Please login to continue reading.
If you don't have a login, you will need to purchase a subscription to gain access to this article, including all our online content. Please use this link and follow the steps.
For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription to us that we can add you to for FREE, please email Atif Choudhury at achoudhury@worldipreview.com
trademarks; Trademark Decree Law
