As a recent development, a Regulation Amending the Regulation on the Implementation of the Industrial Property Law (“Amending Regulation”), which introduces provisions regarding non-use cancellation proceedings, was eventually published in the Official Gazette on March 15, 2025.
While the practitioners and the relevant parties with a legal interest in these proceedings have long faced challenges due to the system’s inefficiency, it is expected that the system will become fully functional with the Amending Regulation. Indeed, following its publication, the TPTO began sending notifications to parties whose trade marks are subject to non-use cancellation requests, inviting them to submit evidence of use.
Debate over new terms of cancellation decisions
However, one particular sentence in the Amending Regulation may spark a new debate:
“A cancellation decision cannot be made for similar goods or services.”
In the Amending Regulation, after stating that the mark will be cancelled if the trade mark owner fails to provide sufficient evidence of genuine use, it is further added that “a cancellation decision cannot be made for similar goods or services”. This sentence was not included in the original text of Article 26 of the IP Law and was added through the Amending Regulation. The ambiguity surrounding its meaning is already creating uncertainty for trade mark practitioners.
There are currently two main interpretations being discussed:
- The TPTO will only cancel trade marks for the exact goods or services listed in the cancellation request, not for any similar ones. In other words, no cancellation decision will be made for similar goods and services unless they are explicitly included in the request. But if this is the intended meaning, it merely states the obvious, as cancellation decisions should, by default, be limited to the goods and services included in the request.
- If use is proven for certain goods or services, the trade mark cannot be cancelled for others that are similar, even if use is not proven for them. For example, if a trade mark covers “jewellery, shirts, sweats, pants, hats, beanies, and caps” and use is proven only for “shirts”, can the mark still be cancelled for the others?
- What about “sweats and pants” in the same subclass (25/01)?
- Or “hats, beanies, and caps” in different subclasses under class 25?
- Or even “jewellery” in class 14, which can be deemed similar but in a completely different class?
Under the previous system, when IP courts handled cancellations, only goods/services for which use could not be proven were cancelled, regardless of similarity. This new clause could signal a shift in the practice.
In the EU, under Article 58(2) EUTMR, if the grounds for cancellation apply only to certain goods or services covered by an EU trade mark, the proprietor's rights will be revoked solely in relation to those specific goods or services. This practice is the same as our previous practice, which was handled by specialised IP courts.
So, what now?
At a recent conference hosted by Bilgi University, this ambiguity was discussed among legal practitioners. A TPTO representative confirmed that the TPTO intends to publish a guideline on the cancellation proceedings and to clarify how this provision should be interpreted. Until then, the legal community is left with more questions, and a new era of debate may be on the horizon.
FICPI's view and involvement
FICPI uniquely combines education and advocacy on topics around patents and trade marks, with a focus on developing the professional excellence of its individual members. FICPI Forums, Congress, committees and meetings are opportunities to gather insights from the international IP attorney community on any issue, whether it be practice-related or topics of patent and trade mark law.
Next steps
- Find FICPI members in Turkïye in our FICPI Member Directory
- Explore the FICPI Study & Work Groups and get more involved with FICPI’s work, including its Working Group on International Trade Marks (CET 1).