Under the Turkish Commercial Code, a trade name is the designation that identifies a merchant’s commercial enterprise and distinguishes it from others. Upon registration with the trade registry, the trade name is granted legal protection. This protection is not strictly limited to the registered scope of activity and may extend more broadly within the framework of the principle of good faith. A trademark, on the other hand, is a sign capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of others and is protected as an industrial property right upon registration before the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office. Accordingly, a company’s trade name and trademark do not necessarily overlap. Indeed, it is common practice for owners of well-known trademarks to operate under trade names that differ entirely from their trademarks. Although these concepts are governed by different legal regimes, most disputes arise precisely at their intersection.
One of the most frequently asked questions in practice is whether a previously registered trade name may be asserted against a subsequently registered trademark. By way of example, consider a company that has long operated under the trade name “Kartopu Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd. Şti.”, duly registered with the trade registry. This company uses its trade name solely to identify its business and does not brand any products under that designation. Subsequently, another undertaking registers the sign “Kartopu” as a trademark in the class of cleaning products and markets its goods under that trademark. In such a scenario, despite the existence of a trademark registration, the prior trade name right—its existence, manner of use, and compliance with the principle of good faith—must be separately assessed in terms of potential trademark invalidation and unfair competition claims.
In practice, conflicts between trade names and trademarks often emerge through such seemingly straightforward yet legally critical scenarios. The Industrial Property Code addresses this issue by providing that where a trademark application contains another party’s trade name, the trade name holder is entitled to file an opposition before the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office and, subsequently, an invalidation action. This regulation elevates the trade name from a passive element protected solely under commercial law to a prior right that may also be invoked within trademark law.
The case law of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) consistently supports this approach. It is well established that where the distinctive element of a trade name is reproduced identically or in a confusingly similar manner in a later trademark, the trademark may be declared invalid. In particular, the prior registration of the trade name and the acquisition of distinctiveness of the relevant sign in the market play a decisive role in the assessment. As emphasized in the decisions of the General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation, registration of a trade name with the trade registry grants the holder an inherent right to the name, even in the absence of actual use within the registered fields of activity.
This approach directly influences unfair competition claims. In practice, trademark owners frequently allege that the opposing party’s use of a trade name constitutes trademark infringement and unfair competition. However, the jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation clearly demonstrates that trademark registration does not, in itself, confer absolute supremacy. Where a trade name has been lawfully registered prior to the trademark and is used in compliance with the principle of good faith, such use cannot automatically be characterized as unfair competition solely on the basis of a trademark registration.
In assessing unfair competition, the decisive factors are the manner of use, the parties’ respective fields of activity, their target customer base, and the overall perception created in the public mind. Where a trade name is used strictly within the limits of identifying the enterprise and does not create a misleading effect, the Court of Cassation generally adopts a cautious approach toward unfair competition allegations. Conversely, where a trade name is used in a trademark-like manner with the intent to exploit the reputation or recognition of another party, the provisions on unfair competition come into play.
In conclusion, while trademark registration provides companies with strong legal protection, such protection is not unlimited. A prior, distinctive, and bona fide trade name carries significant weight in both trademark invalidation actions and unfair competition disputes. For this reason, companies should take into account not only the trademark registry but also the trade registry records and actual market practices when shaping their naming strategies.
A sound naming strategy is decisive not only for present operations but also for the prevention of future disputes. Companies that strike the right balance between trade names and trademarks from the outset can minimize legal risks while ensuring sustainable growth of their brand value on a secure legal foundation.
Attorney At Law Atakan Özyurt