What Is the Trademark Cancellation Procedure and What Are the Grounds for Cancellation?
Trademark cancellation refers to the removal, in whole or in part, of a registered trademark from the trademark registry where it loses certain conditions prescribed under Turkish law or where it is found never to have fulfilled such conditions. Pursuant to Article 26 of the Industrial Property Law No. 6769, which entered into force in 2017, trademarks registered and protected in Türkiye may be cancelled under the conditions set out therein.
Although the trademark right recognized under Turkish Intellectual Property Law has the status of a property right (in rem right), it does not grant the right holder unlimited authority or freedom. The right holder is under an obligation to use the right as prescribed by law. Such use is regulated under Article 9 of the same Law as follows:
Use of trademark
Article9- (1) If, within a period of five years following the date of registration, the trademark has not been put to genuine use in Turkey by the trademark proprietor in connection with the goods or services in respect of which it is registered, or if such use has been suspended during an uninterrupted period of five years, the trademark shall be revoked, unless there are proper reasons for non-use.
(2) The cases set out below shall also be deemed as use of trademark within the meaning of the first paragraph:
a) Use of the trademark with different elements which do not alter the distinctive character of the mark;
b) Use of the trade mark on goods or on the packaging solely for export purposes.
(3) Use of the trademark with the consent of the trademark proprietor shall be deemed to constitute use by the trademark proprietor
Accordingly, non-use of the trademark is recognized as a ground for cancellation under the Industrial Property Law. However, the grounds for cancellation regulated under the Law are not limited to Article 9. The grounds for cancellation are further detailed in paragraph 1 of Article 26 of the same Law as follows:
Grounds for revocation and revocation request
Article 26- (1) Upon request, the revocation of the trademark shall be decided by the Office in the following situations:
a)Existence of conditions set out in the first paragraph of the Article 9.
b)Trademark becoming generic for the registered goods or services due to trademark proprietor’s actions or as a consequence of necessary measures not taken by the trademark proprietor.
c) Trademark misleading the public concerning the nature, quality or geographic origin of the goods or services for which it is registered, as a result of the use by the trademark proprietor himself or with the trademark proprietor’s consent.
ç) Use of trademark contrary to Article 32…
As seen, although the grounds for cancellation are set out in the Law, their assessment is carried out on a case by case basis for each specific case. For example, in examinations concerning the ground for cancellation set out under subparagraph (b) of paragraph 1, it will be examined whether the trademark has become a generic name in respect of the goods and or services for which it was registered. On the other hand, the situations regulated under subparagraph (c) arise where the registered trademark subject to the cancellation request has become misleading in the eyes of consumers. In this context, becoming misleading refers to the creation of a false perception regarding the nature, quality, or geographical origin of the relevant goods or services. The crucial point is that the trademark did not initially constitute an obstacle to registration; however, during the course of its use, it becomes misleading to the public due to a discrepancy between the actual situation and the perception created by the trademark.
Another ground for cancellation arises under Article 26/1(ç) where a guarantee mark or a collective mark is used in a manner contrary to the technical specification of the registered trademark as regulated under Article 32 of the same Law. Guarantee marks and collective marks, unlike trade service marks, are based on a technical specification setting out the common characteristics of certain goods or services, the conditions of use, and the mechanisms of supervision. Therefore, the protection of such marks depends not only on registration but also on continuous and good faith compliance with the relevant technical specification.
If the trademark proprietor fails to take the necessary measures to prevent the use of the mark in a manner contrary to the technical specification, and such non compliance is not remedied within the granted period, the mark is no longer deemed worthy of legal protection. In such a case, pursuant to paragraph 7 of Article 32, use contrary to the technical specification constitutes an independent ground for trademark cancellation under subparagraph (ç) of paragraph 1 of Article 26. In this way, the fundamental functions of a guarantee mark or collective mark, namely trust, quality, and standardization, are intended to be safeguarded.
Who May File a Trademark Cancellation Request?
Pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Industrial Property Law, interested parties may request the cancellation of a trademark. Although the relevant provision does not explicitly list such persons, it is accepted in practice and doctrine that those entitled to request cancellation may be described as follows: persons having a legitimate interest, public prosecutors, or relevant public institutions and organizations. Accordingly, the concept of “interested parties” entitled to request cancellation is not interpreted narrowly; it covers natural or legal persons whose legal or economic interests are affected by the existence or use of the trademark. In this context, competing undertakings seeking to register a trademark for identical or similar goods and services, persons directly harmed by the use of the trademark, or market actors adversely affected by the continued registration of a misleading trademark are considered to have a legitimate interest.
On the other hand, given that trademark cancellation is closely related to public order and consumer protection, public prosecutors and relevant public institutions and organizations are also granted the authority to request cancellation. This demonstrates that trademark cancellation serves not only to protect individual interests but also as a mechanism ensuring the fair and reliable functioning of the market.
How Does the Trademark Cancellation Procedure Operate?
The Transfer of Cancellation Authority from the Courts to the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office
The Industrial Property Law No. 6769 introduced a significant change of authority with respect to trademark cancellation; however, this change was not implemented simultaneously with the publication of the Law, but rather through a transitional period. Pursuant to Provisional Article 4 of the Law, until Article 26 of the Industrial Property Code entered into force, the authority to decide on trademark cancellation continued to be exercised by the courts. During this period, cancellation requests were filed in the form of cancellation actions and were resolved in accordance with judicial procedure.
In accordance with Article 192/1(a) of the Industrial Property Code, Article 26 entered into force seven years after the date of publication of the Law. Throughout this period, the legislator preferred to treat trademark cancellation not as an administrative act but within the scope of judicial review; therefore, cancellation requests were brought directly before the courts. Cancellation actions that had been filed and were pending during the transitional period were also to be concluded by the courts, again pursuant to Provisional Article 4. The cancellation decisions rendered by the courts were sent ex officio to the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office following their finalization.
However, as of 2024, with the entry into force of Article 26 of the Industrial Property Code, the system shifted to an administrative model for trademark cancellation. From this date onward, cancellation requests have no longer been filed before the courts by way of an action, but have instead been submitted directly to the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office. Accordingly, trademark cancellation, unlike opposition and invalidation proceedings, has come to be examined within the framework of a specific administrative procedure conducted by the Office.
As a natural consequence of this systemic change, the first decisions concerning trademark cancellation requests were issued by the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office in 2025. This development demonstrates that the legislator’s intention to transform trademark cancellation from a judicial process into a specialized and more expedient administrative mechanism has been effectively implemented. Nevertheless, the fact that the Office’s decisions remain subject to judicial review continues to constitute an important safeguard protecting the right to seek legal remedies for trademark proprietors and third parties.
What Are the Key Considerations Regarding Trademark Cancellation?
The first and foremost point to be borne in mind when filing a trademark cancellation request is that the cancellation of the trademark in question produces legal effect only as of the date of filing of the cancellation request before the Office. The rationale behind this rule is to preserve the validity of the acts carried out by the trademark proprietor on the basis of the rights conferred by registration until the filing date of the cancellation request and to prevent retroactive loss of rights.
With regard to non-use, which constitutes one of the grounds for cancellation, it should be noted that the five-year period is calculated from the date of registration of the trademark. If, after the expiry of this five-year period, the trademark proprietor has made genuine use of the trademark in relation to the goods or services for which it is registered up until the date on which the cancellation request is filed before the Office, a cancellation request based on non-use shall be rejected. However, the legislator has not afforded protection to uses made in bad faith and solely for the purpose of avoiding cancellation. Accordingly, any use made in anticipation of a cancellation request and occurring within the three months preceding the filing of the request before the Office shall not be taken into consideration in the examination of cancellation. This regulation aims to determine whether the trademark has fulfilled a real and continuous function in the marketplace.
Furthermore, the grounds for cancellation do not necessarily have to cover all the goods or services for which the trademark is registered. Where the ground for cancellation exists only in respect of certain goods or services, the Office shall issue a decision of partial cancellation. In such a case, the trademark shall remain protected in respect of the goods or services for which it continues to be used or for which no ground for cancellation exists. However, a cancellation decision may not be rendered in a manner that would alter the distinctive character of the trademark by modifying the representation of the mark.
If ownership of the trademark changes during the pendency of the cancellation proceedings, the process shall continue to be conducted with respect to the person recorded as the right holder in the registry. This rule aims to prevent changes in ownership from delaying the cancellation proceedings or causing procedural complications.
From a procedural standpoint, cancellation requests are first notified to the trademark proprietor, who is granted a one-month period to submit observations (responses). Within this period, the proprietor may submit arguments and evidence to the Office; upon request, an additional period of up to one month may be granted by the Office. Where deemed necessary, the Office may request further information and documents and shall render its final decision on the basis of the file, taking into account the parties’ claims and defences as well as the evidence submitted.
In light of the foregoing, it is of great importance that the grounds for trademark cancellation be properly understood and assessed in accordance with the specific circumstances of each case. Trademark cancellation is not merely a formal procedure; rather, it produces serious consequences by directly affecting the rights of the trademark proprietor and potentially leading to the removal of protection from the register. Therefore, trademark proprietors must ensure that their marks are used lawfully and genuinely, while third parties must advance cancellation requests in compliance with the applicable time limits, procedural requirements, and burden of proof. Otherwise, either a well-founded cancellation request may fail due to procedural deficiencies, or a trademark that no longer deserves protection may remain on the register, thereby creating legal uncertainty in the market. For this reason, the proper identification of the grounds and procedure for trademark cancellation constitutes a fundamental element of an effective and fair trademark protection system.