An Overview of the Administrative Revocation of Trademarks in Turkey
- Aksoy IP
- Jun 3
- 7 min read
Article 26 of the Industrial Property Code No. 6769 (the “IP Code”), which transferred the authority to revoke (or cancel) registered trademarks from courts to the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (“TPTO”), entered into force on January 10, 2024. However, the Regulation on the Implementation of the Industrial Property Code (“Regulation”), which was expected to detail the procedures for administrative revocation (or cancellation), had not been updated accordingly. As a result, although the legal basis for administrative revocation was in force, the actual implementation was delayed, causing legal uncertainty.
This status changed with the publication of the Amending Regulation in the Official Gazette dated March 15, 2025, No. 32842. These amendments, which came into force the same day, introduced Article 30/A into the Regulation and completed the legislative framework for administrative revocation.
In this article, we will provide an overview of the administrative revocation procedure in light of the now-completed regulations.
Grounds for Trademark Revocation
According to Article 26 of the IP Code, a registered trademark may be revoked by the TPTO only under the following conditions:
Non-Use of the Trademark: Under Article 9 of the IP Code, if a trademark is not genuinely used in Turkey for the goods or services for which it was registered within 5 years from the date of registration without just cause—or if such use is interrupted for a consecutive 5-year period— decision shall be made to revoke the trademark. Upon request for revocation, the trademark owner is granted 1 month to prove the genuine use of the trademark. As stated in Article 9, using the trademark in a form differing only in elements that do not alter its distinctive character, or use solely for export purposes (e.g., on goods or packaging), qualifies as use. Use by a third party with the trademark owner’s consent also qualifies as valid use. The burden of proof lies with the trademark owner.
Article 30 of the Regulation sets out how and with what evidence the proof of use should be submitted in cases where a non-use defense is raised in opposition proceedings against the publication of trademark applications. Although Article 30 of the Regulation concerns the evidence required in non-use defenses during opposition proceedings, it may also provide guidance in trademark revocation proceedings. The trademark owner should be able to prove substantial use by presenting invoices, packaging, labels, price lists, catalogs, photographs, and similar documents.
However, use initiated solely to prevent revocation will not be taken into account if it occurred within 3 months prior to the trademark revocation request, according to Article 26/4 of the IP Code.
Becoming a Generic Name: A trademark may also be revoked if it has become a common or generic name in trade. If a trademark should not have been registered at all, it must be subject to an invalidation (nullity) action under Article 5 of the IP Code. However, if a trademark that was not generic at the time of registration later becomes a common/generic name due to the acts of the trademark owner or their failure to take necessary measures, the administrative revocation mechanism may be applicable. In administrative revocation requests based on this ground, the applicant must demonstrate that the trademark has become a generic name and that the trademark owner's actions or omissions have contributed to this. The owner, in turn, must show that the trademark retains distinctiveness and that necessary precautions were taken.
Misleading the Public: A trademark may also be revoked if it misleads the public regarding the nature, quality, or geographical origin of the goods or services as a result of its use. For example, even if a food trademark includes terms such as “natural” or “organic”, the use of non-natural ingredients in the products, or a clothing brand implying that it is of French origin while the goods are actually produced in another country, may be considered within the scope of this ground for revocation.
Violation of Technical Specifications: Finally, use of collective or certification marks in violation of their technical specifications also constitutes grounds for revocation.
Filing a Revocation Request and Response
Pursuant to Article 26 of the IP Code, which entered into force as of January 10, 2024, requests for the administrative revocation of trademarks may now only be filed before the TPTO. Such requests can no longer be submitted to the courts, which were previously authorized before this date.
Article 30/A(4) of the Regulation states that the request shall be submitted via a form. This refers to the form completed during the application process on the Electronic Application System of the TPTO. The form must include the registration number of the trademark subject to revocation, the identity and contact details of the applicant or their representative (if any), the grounds for revocation, proof of payment submitted to the TPTO, and a specification of the goods or services for which revocation is requested. Accordingly, it is possible to request the revocation of either all goods and services covered by the trademark or only certain ones.
The IP Code and the Regulation state that “interested parties” may file a revocation request; however, the term “interested party” is not explicitly defined. It is considered that the lack of such a definition is an intentional choice, and that anyone who has a legitimate legal interest in the revocation of the trademark may submit such a request.
Upon receiving the revocation request, the TPTO shall notify the trademark owner and grant them a 1-month period to submit their response and evidence. According to Article 30/A(7) of the Regulation, if requested within this 1-month response period, the TPTO may grant an additional period of up to 1 month. No specific condition is required for the acceptance of this extension request.
Furthermore, Article 30/A(8) of the Regulation provides that, if deemed necessary, the TPTO may request additional information, documents, or explanations from the parties and allow a 1-month period for their submission.
Official Revocation Request Fee and Escrow Amount
With the amendment to the Regulation, a new payment item—namely the trademark revocation request escrow amount—has been introduced into Turkish trademark law, which was not included in previous draft versions.
According to the Communiqué Amending the Communiqué on the Fee Schedule to Be Applied in 2025 by the TPTO (BİK/TÜRKPATENT: 2025/1), published in the Official Gazette dated March 15, 2025, two separate fees must be paid to the TPTO at the time of filing a revocation request.
The total amount payable to the TPTO for trademark revocation requests is as follows:
● Revocation Fee (including tax): TRY 28,150
● Revocation Request Escrow Amount: 23,458.33
Total (per trademark subject to revocation): TRY 51,608.33
A separate revocation request must be filed for each trademark. The total amount, consisting of the two fee components, must be paid in full at the time of application by the applicant to the TPTO.
According to Article 30/B of the Regulation, the fate of the escrow amount held in the TPTO’s escrow account depends on the final decision:
If the revocation request is fully accepted, the escrow amount shall be refunded to the applicant upon request.
If the revocation request is fully rejected, the escrow amount shall be paid to the owner of the trademark subject to the request.
If the request is partially accepted/rejected, no refund shall be made to either party, and the escrow amount shall be recorded as revenue.
The requirement to pay this full amount separately for each revocation request may pose a significant financial burden, particularly in cases where multiple identical or similar trademarks owned by the same party are subject to revocation due to non-use.
Effect of Revocation and Possibility to Request an Earlier Effective Date
In cases of trademark revocation, since the grounds for revocation arise after the registration date, the effect of the revocation is prospective. Article 27 of the IP Code states that, if a trademark is revoked, the decision shall take effect from the date it is submitted to the TPTO.
However, the same article also provides that, if requested, and if the grounds for revocation occurred at an earlier date, the decision may take effect from that earlier date. Article 30/A(6) of the Regulation specifies that, if such an earlier date is requested, it must be expressly indicated in the revocation request. The previous draft of Article 30/A(6) required the applicant to demonstrate a “legitimate interest” for requesting a retroactive effect, but this requirement was removed in the final version.
Nevertheless, until the administrative practice becomes well-established, it may still be advisable for the applicant to briefly indicate a legitimate interest. What constitutes a legitimate interest should be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
For instance, situations where the trademark subject to revocation has prevented the registration of other marks through absolute or refusal grounds for refusal, or where the trademark has been used as a basis in invalidation or infringement actions against third parties, may be considered within the scope of legitimate interest.
Examination of the Revocation Requests and Decision
The authority responsible for examining and deciding on revocation requests is the Department of Trademarks within the TPTO. Article 30/A(8) of the Regulation states that the examination shall be conducted based on the file and the information and documents submitted by the parties. Therefore, procedures typical of court proceedings, such as expert reports or hearings, are not applicable in administrative trademark revocation proceedings. The same article also states that any information, documents, or explanations not submitted within the prescribed time limits will not be taken into consideration.
The Department of Trademarks may either fully accept or reject the revocation request. In accordance with Article 26(5) of the IP Code, if the grounds for revocation apply only to certain goods or services for which the trademark is registered, a partial revocation may be decided for those goods or services. However, a revocation decision may not be issued in a way that alters the graphical representation of the mark itself.
Appeal Against the Decision
Under Article 20 of the IP Code, parties may appeal the decision of the Department of Trademarks to the Re-examination and Evaluation Board (“Board”) within 2 months from the date of notification of the decision. Under Article 31(4) of the Regulation, the Board shall grant the other party a 1-month period to submit its response to the appeal.
The decision of the Board constitutes the final decision of the TPTO. Under Article 30/A(12) of the Regulation, the final revocation decision of the TPTO shall be recorded in the Official Trademark Registry and published in the Official Trademark Bulletin.
Judicial Review of the Board’s Decision
According to Article 15(c) of Law No. 5000 on Patent and Trademark Attorneys and Certain Regulations, a cancellation lawsuit may be filed against the Board’s final decisions. Such a lawsuit may only be brought before the Ankara Civil Court for Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights, within 2 months from the date of notification of the final decision.
In this lawsuit, along with the applicant and the trademark owner, the TPTO shall also be named as a defendant, as it is the authority whose final decision is being challenged.
For further queries, please contact:
Dogukan Berk Aksoy, LL.M.
Attorney at Law | Trademark Attorney | Patent Attorney
T: +90 312 969 09 63
Evren Firat Goklu
Attorney at Law | Trademark Attorney | Patent Attorney
Furkan Mert Ozkaynak
Legal Trainee