Introduction
Prior to the enactment of the Industrial Property Code No. 6769 (“IPC”), the revocation of a registered trademark could only be carried out through the courts. However, with the entry into force of Article 26 of the IPC in 2017, the authority to revoke trademarks was transferred from the courts directly to the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (“TÜRKPATENT” or the “Office”). Nevertheless, the effective date of this provision was postponed until 10 January 2024 through a transitional arrangement, and during this interim period, the revocation authority continued to be exercised by the Civil Courts for Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights (“IP Courts”) pursuant to Provisional Article 4 of the IPC.
In line with Directive (EU) 2015/2436, the administrative revocation mechanism finally entered into force on 10 January 2024. However, due to the absence of secondary legislation regulating its implementation, the system failed to become operational in practice. Although Article 26 of the IPC was technically in force, the necessary amendments to the Regulation on the Implementation of the Industrial Property Code—which sets out the procedural and substantive rules for administrative revocation—were not introduced for an extended period. As a result, the Office merely collected “Preliminary Applications for Trademark Revocation” through the EPATS system, without conducting any substantive examination of such applications.
This uncertainty came to an end with the publication in the Official Gazette dated 15 March 2025 and numbered 32842 of the “Regulation Amending the Regulation on the Implementation of the Industrial Property Code.” Articles 30/A and 30/B were added to the Regulation, providing detailed provisions regarding the administrative revocation process.
In this article, we will address the functioning of the administrative revocation process, its legal implications, and current debates, within the framework of the new rules that came into effect as of 2025.
2. Grounds for Revocation and Application Criteria
Pursuant to Article 26 of the IPC and Article 30/A of the Regulation, administrative revocation of trademarks may be sought in the following circumstances:
a) Non-Use of the Trademark
Under Article 9 of the IPC, where a trademark has not been put to genuine use in Türkiye within five years from the date of registration, or where such use has been suspended for an uninterrupted period of five years without proper reason, a decision may be rendered to revoke the trademark. In such cases, the trademark owner is granted a one-month period to submit a response.
Proof of use must primarily be established through invoices, as well as packaging, catalogues, advertising materials, labels, and similar evidence. However, any use within the three months preceding the revocation request shall not be taken into account (Article 26/4 of the IPC).
b) Genericization of the Trademark
If a trademark has become a common name for the goods or services for which it is registered, as a result of acts or omissions of the trademark owner, this constitutes a ground for revocation. The applicant must substantiate this claim with concrete evidence.
c) Misleading Use
Where the trademark is liable to mislead the public as to the nature, geographical origin, or quality of the goods or services, an application for revocation may be filed.
d) Breach of Technical Specifications
The use of guarantee marks or collective marks in a manner that contravenes the applicable technical specifications also constitutes a ground for revocation.
3. Revocation Procedure, Application, and Fees
Applications for revocation may be submitted solely to TÜRKPATENT and exclusively through the online filing and transaction platform, the Electronic Patent and Utility Model Application and Monitoring System (“EPATS”). A separate revocation application must be filed for each trademark. As of 2025, the total amount of application fees and costs is approximately TRY 51,608.33.
4. Effect and Effective Date of the Revocation Decision
Pursuant to Article 27 of the IPC, a revocation decision, as a rule, produces legal effect from the date on which the revocation request is submitted to the Office. However, if the ground for revocation arose at an earlier date and such retroactive application is requested, the decision may also be rendered effective from that earlier date.
According to Article 30/A(6) of the Regulation, such earlier date must be expressly indicated in the application form. Although the applicable text does not require proof of a “legitimate interest” for retroactive effect, in practice it may be advisable to state the underlying justification. For instance, this may apply where the revocation of a conflicting trademark would clear the way for other applications, or where the revocation is sought for a trademark relied upon in an invalidation action.
5. Decision-Making Process and the Office’s Scope of Examination
In administrative revocation proceedings, the competent decision-making authority is the Trademark Department Presidency within TÜRKPATENT. Pursuant to Article 30/A(8) of the Regulation, the examination is conducted solely on the basis of the file. Elements such as expert opinions, on-site inspections, or hearings are not part of the process. Only information, documents, and statements submitted within the prescribed time limits will be considered; any submissions or evidence filed after the deadline will not be examined.
In accordance with Article 26(5) of the IPC, the Trademark Department may accept the request in full, reject it in full, or order partial revocation limited to certain goods and/or service classes. However, the representation of the trademark may not be altered as a result of the revocation.
6. Appeals and Judicial Review
a) Administrative Appeal
Both the trademark owner and the applicant for revocation have the right to appeal the decision. Pursuant to Article 20 of the IPC and Article 31 of the Regulation, an appeal against a decision of the Trademark Department may be lodged with the Re-Examination and Evaluation Board (the “Board”) within two months. The Board grants the opposing party a one-month period to submit its observations. Decisions of the Board constitute the final administrative decisions of TÜRKPATENT.
b) Judicial Review
In accordance with Article 15(c) of Law No. 5000, a lawsuit for annulment of the Board’s decision may be filed before the Ankara Civil Court for Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights within two months from the date of service of the decision. In such proceedings, the trademark owner, the revocation applicant, and TÜRKPATENT will all be parties to the action, either as defendants or intervenors.
However, pursuant to Article 30/A(12) of the Regulation, before the Board’s decision becomes final, TÜRKPATENT records its decision in the Official Trademark Register and publishes it in the Trademark Bulletin. This practice has given rise to significant debate in practice.
7. Practical Issues and Criticisms
a) Abuse of Revocation Requests
Although the administrative revocation mechanism was designed to provide a simple and swift remedy, no oversight mechanism has yet been established to prevent its malicious use.
In particular, instances have been observed where competing businesses submit mass revocation requests for the purpose of commercial attacks, or where unused trademarks are registered solely to block similar marks, and subsequently relied upon as a means of exerting pressure through the revocation process.
b) Uncertainty Regarding Proof and Evidentiary Obligations
While the burden of proof in cases of non-use rests with the trademark owner, it remains unclear for certain grounds of revocation—such as misleading use or breach of technical specifications—whether the applicant’s statements alone may suffice, or whether evidence must be submitted, and what the applicable standard of proof is. Accordingly, it is expected that clarity will emerge as more decisions are rendered by the Board and the courts.
c) Retroactive Effect and Legal Consequences Post-Revocation
Although the Regulation provides that the revocation decision shall be immediately recorded in the Official Register, implementing this before the Board and judicial review processes are exhausted may lead to irreparable harm. For example, if a new trademark application is filed following the revocation of a mark, but the Board or the court later overturns the revocation decision, contradictory entries in the register may arise.
8. Conclusion and Recommendations
The administrative revocation mechanism for trademarks is a positive development in terms of preserving the functionality of registered marks in line with market realities, ensuring their effective use in the marketplace, and maintaining the accuracy and currency of the trademark register. However, for the system to operate effectively and fairly, it is essential to establish safeguards against potential systematic abuses in practice, to reconsider the fee–deposit system, and to ensure that the Office’s decisions are reasoned and foreseeable.
Moreover, the rapid development of judicial precedents and their guidance for practical application will reinforce the system’s reliability. In this new framework, the responsibility of trademark owners is clear: they must not merely register their trademarks, but also actively use them, keep records of such use in an orderly manner, and develop robust usage strategies to counter potential revocation requests. In the new regime, the only way to keep a trademark alive is to make it visible and functional not only in the register but also in the marketplace.
Attorney At Law Ece Başdoğan