Constitutional Court denies possibility of identical trademark coexistence


The Ankara Third Civil IP Court has claimed that the principle of ‘one owner per trademark’ oversteps its purpose and the definition of ‘identically similar’ in Article 7/1(b) should constitute relative grounds for refusal, as stated in Article 8/1(b). The court further claimed that the TPI has only a subjective view of trademarks in terms of their appearance to consumers.

Unlock unlimited access to all WTR content