Trademark Non‑use Revocation in Turkey (TPTO 2026): Procedure, Evidence & Timelines

Trademark non-use revocation Turkey has become one of the most consequential procedural tools in Turkish intellectual property practice, and since 10 January 2024 it sits squarely within the administrative competence of the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (TPTO) rather than the civil courts. For brand owners and in-house counsel managing Turkish portfolios, the shift changes how revocation actions are filed, defended and appealed, and it raises the stakes on maintaining a disciplined evidence-of-use archive. This guide walks through the statutory basis under Industrial Property Code No. 6769, who may apply, what counts as genuine use, the documents that persuade the TPTO, and the timelines and appeal routes you need to plan around.

It is written for practitioners who need to decide, quickly and confidently, whether to attack a dormant registration or defend one that is under threat.

TL;DR, key takeaways for brand owners

If a registered Turkish trademark has not been genuinely used for a continuous five-year period, it is vulnerable to trademark non-use revocation turkey proceedings before the TPTO. Anyone with a legitimate interest, most often a competitor seeking to clear the register, can file. The applicant bears the burden of alleging non-use, but the registered owner must prove genuine use in Turkey during the relevant window with dated, market-specific evidence. Because competence now rests with the TPTO administratively, the process is more document-driven than the former court route, which makes evidence preparation the decisive factor.

• File. If a blocking registration appears unused, a well-structured non-use petition can clear your path to registration or use.
• Defend. If your mark is challenged, assemble dated invoices, e-commerce records and distribution contracts tied to Turkey before deadlines expire.
• Gather proof continuously. Do not wait for a challenge, maintain a rolling evidence-of-use archive for every class of goods and services.
• Consider partial revocation. Registrations can be narrowed by class or specific goods; both attackers and defenders should think in terms of subsets, not all-or-nothing outcomes.

Statutory basis and the non‑use period under Industrial Property Code No. 6769

The legal foundation for trademark non-use revocation Turkey is the Industrial Property Code No. 6769, which consolidated and modernised Turkish IP law when it entered force in January 2017. Article 9 of the Code establishes that a registered trademark may be revoked where, without proper justification, it has not been put to genuine use in Turkey in connection with the goods or services for which it is registered within a continuous period of five years, or where such use has been suspended for an uninterrupted five-year period. The revocation grounds and procedure are set out in Article 26.

The five-year clock is central. It runs from the date of registration or from the date of last genuine use, whichever is later. This means a mark can lapse into vulnerability at any point in its life, a burst of early use does not immunise it forever, and a mark can move in and out of exposure depending on ongoing commercial activity. Territoriality is equally important: use must occur in or be directed at the Turkish market. Use elsewhere, however extensive, does not save a Turkish registration unless it can be connected to genuine commercial exploitation reaching Turkey.

Scope is assessed class by class and, increasingly, good by good. A registration covering a broad specification may be revoked only for those goods and services where use cannot be shown, leaving genuinely used items intact. This granular approach underpins the partial revocation strategies discussed later.

What counts as “use” in the statute

Not every appearance of a mark qualifies. The Code contemplates genuine use, real commercial exploitation aimed at creating or maintaining a market share, rather than token, internal or purely symbolic use engineered to defeat a revocation claim. Use of the mark in a form differing in elements that do not alter its distinctive character can still count, as can affixing the mark to goods or packaging in Turkey solely for export purposes. Use by a licensee or with the proprietor’s consent is treated as use by the proprietor. The recurring question in trademark non-use revocation turkey proceedings is whether the totality of the evidence shows a mark actually functioning in the Turkish marketplace during the relevant five years.

Who can file a trademark non‑use revocation before TPTO

Standing to bring a non-use action is broad. Any interested person may file a revocation request against a registered trademark on the ground of non-use. In practice, applicants are overwhelmingly commercial actors: competitors whose own applications have been blocked by the target registration, businesses seeking freedom to operate under a similar mark, and parties responding defensively to an infringement or opposition brought by the registered owner.

Third parties intervening in related disputes and businesses conducting brand clearance before launch are frequent users of the procedure. The applicant does not need to prove that the mark has never been used, the mere allegation of non-use for the statutory period is sufficient to open proceedings and to shift the practical burden onto the registered owner to demonstrate genuine use. This asymmetry is precisely why the procedure is such a potent tool for clearing crowded registers, and why proprietors must treat every incoming request seriously from day one.

Timing and prerequisites for filing

Before filing a trademark non-use revocation turkey request, an applicant should confirm the target registration has been on the register long enough for the five-year period to have elapsed, identify the precise goods and services to be challenged, and prepare the official request with the applicable fee. Foreign applicants must act through a registered trademark attorney before the TPTO and provide a power of attorney meeting Turkish formality requirements. Because the attorney qualification and power-of-attorney formalities are strict, non-resident brand owners should confirm these documents early to avoid procedural rejection.

TPTO jurisdiction, the competence shift under 6769 and administrative practice

The most significant structural change for practitioners is that competence to decide non-use revocation moved from the civil IP courts into an administrative procedure before the TPTO. Under Article 26 of the Industrial Property Code No. 6769, and the transitional arrangements that deferred this competence for seven years from entry into force, this administrative competence came into effect on 10 January 2024. As a result, trademark non-use revocation turkey requests are now filed with and adjudicated by the Office in the first instance rather than commenced by a court action.

It is worth noting, however, that Article 26 becoming legally effective on 10 January 2024 did not immediately translate into a functioning administrative procedure. The secondary legislation needed to operationalise the mechanism, the amendments to the Regulation on the Implementation of the Industrial Property Code, was only published in the Official Gazette on 15 March 2025, roughly fourteen months later. During that interim period the TPTO accepted preliminary applications through its online system but could not substantively examine or decide non-use revocation requests, which created a period of practical uncertainty for both applicants and proprietors.  

Why the administrative route matters, process vs. finality

The administrative route is more document-driven, but a first-instance TPTO decision is not necessarily the end of the road. Decisions can be challenged before the competent courts. Counsel should therefore treat the TPTO stage as decisive but not final: the evidence assembled there frames the entire subsequent record. The administrative procedure also interacts with civil enforcement, a proprietor pursuing an infringement claim in the civil courts may find the defendant filing a parallel non-use revocation before the TPTO, so litigation strategy and portfolio maintenance must be coordinated.

Preparing a petition to cancel for non‑use, procedural steps and draft structure

A well-drafted petition is the backbone of any trademark non-use revocation turkey action. Whether attacking or anticipating a defence, counsel should approach the petition as a structured, evidence-linked document rather than a bare assertion. The core procedural elements are consistent across cases.

• Identification of the target registration. Registration number, mark as registered, owner details and the full specification of goods and services.
• Scope of the request. A clear statement of whether the request seeks total revocation or partial revocation limited to specific classes or goods.
• Relevant dates. The registration date, the beginning and end of the five-year non-use window relied upon, and the filing date of the request.
• Statement of facts and grounds. A concise narrative asserting non-use for the continuous statutory period.
• Power of attorney. A valid power of attorney authorising the registered trademark attorney to act.
• Fee payment. Proof of payment of the applicable official fee published in the TPTO fee schedule.
• List of evidence. Where the applicant offers any supporting material, an indexed list linking each item to the relevant claim.
• Translations. Certified Turkish translations of any foreign-language documents relied upon.

Practical drafting tips

Precision wins these cases. Anchor every assertion to a defined date range and, where partial revocation is sought, to specific goods rather than broad class headings. Present the relevant five-year window unambiguously and explain how it maps onto the registration timeline. When defending, the same discipline applies in reverse: link each piece of evidence to a specific good or service and to a specific point within the relevant period, so the decision-maker can see genuine use across the window rather than a single isolated transaction. A clear chronology, invoices in date order, advertising cross-referenced to the goods advertised, distribution activity tied to Turkish territory, is far more persuasive than a bundle of undated material.

Attachments checklist

For a proprietor defending, the attachment set typically includes company registration extracts and trade register documents establishing the business, the power of attorney, sales invoices bearing Turkish buyer details, and the corroborating commercial records described in the next section. Every attachment should carry an identifier, invoice number, contract reference or archive URL, so it can be cited precisely in the argument. Originals or certified copies should be retained even where copies are filed, because their authenticity may later be tested on appeal.

Evidence of genuine use, accepted document types, weighting and red flags

Evidence is where trademark non-use revocation turkey cases are won and lost. The objective for a proprietor is always the same: demonstrate genuine commercial exploitation of the mark in Turkey, in relation to the registered goods or services, during the relevant time window. No single document is decisive; the TPTO assesses the evidence as a whole, looking for a coherent picture of real market activity. The strongest bundles combine transactional proof, market-facing proof and third-party corroboration, all firmly dated and geographically anchored.

Primary evidence types

Primary evidence is the direct, transactional record of the mark in commerce. It carries significant weight because it is objective and difficult to manufacture.

• Sales invoices and delivery notes. Invoices showing Turkish customers, with dates falling inside the relevant window, quantities and the branded goods identified. Sequential invoice numbers across the period are especially persuasive.
• Bills of lading and customs declarations. Import or export documentation involving Turkey, demonstrating movement of branded goods into or out of the market.
• Bank statements and payment receipts. Records corroborating that the invoiced transactions were actually paid, closing the loop on genuine commercial activity.
• Advertising and marketing materials. Dated advertisements, campaign records, social media analytics and geo-targeted online advertising reports showing reach into the Turkish audience, ideally with metrics.
• Packaging, labels and product photographs. Images showing the mark on goods offered in the Turkish market, supported by contextual metadata or dated sources.
• Distribution and dealership agreements. Contracts covering Turkish territory, together with stock and order records tied to those arrangements.
• E-commerce evidence. Turkish-facing sales pages, order confirmations showing shipping addresses in Turkey, and archived snapshots of listings dated within the relevant period.

Secondary and corroborative evidence

Secondary evidence supports and contextualises the primary record. It rarely suffices on its own but strengthens a case materially when it aligns with transactional proof.

• Trade fair participation. Certificates of participation, invoices for exhibition stands and dated press coverage evidencing the mark’s presence at industry events connected to Turkey.
• Press releases and media coverage. Dated publications referencing the branded goods or services in the Turkish market.
• Affidavits from distributors and retailers. Statements from Turkish trade partners describing the volume and continuity of sales, most persuasive when backed by the underlying invoices they reference.

Common red flags and evidence gaps

Understanding why evidence fails is as important as knowing what succeeds in a trademark non-use revocation turkey defence. The most common weaknesses are predictable and avoidable.

• Undated or mis-dated materials. Documents with no date, or dated outside the relevant five-year window, carry little to no weight.
• Generic global advertising. International campaigns with no Turkey-specific targeting, language or distribution do not establish use in the Turkish market.
• Failure to link the mark to specific goods or services. Evidence that shows the mark in the abstract, without tying it to the registered goods, leaves gaps a challenger will exploit.
• Missing identifiers. Invoices without buyer details, contracts without performance records, or screenshots without source and date information invite rejection.
• Post-period remedial activity. A flurry of transactions after the request is filed does not cure non-use during the relevant window.

How the TPTO treats use across subsets of classes

Because use is assessed against the actual goods and services, a proprietor who has used the mark for some items but not others faces partial exposure. Evidence proving use for, say, one category of goods will typically preserve the registration for that category while leaving unused categories open to revocation. This is why the specification analysis at the outset, mapping evidence to each good and service, is inseparable from the partial revocation strategy that follows.

Partial revocation and defensive strategies in trademark non-use revocation Turkey cases

Non-use proceedings are rarely all-or-nothing. Partial revocation allows a registration to be narrowed to the goods and services actually used, cancelling only the dormant portions. For attackers, a targeted partial request can clear the specific goods blocking a launch without the evidentiary effort of challenging an entire portfolio. For proprietors, conceding unused goods while robustly defending the core specification can be the smartest tactical response, it concentrates resources where the evidence is strongest and reduces the risk of an adverse finding across the whole registration.

Defensive responses go beyond proof of use. A proprietor may argue that non-use is justified where proper reasons exist, circumstances beyond the owner’s control that genuinely prevented use. Sales by a prior owner or a licensee, properly documented, can also be marshalled as use with consent. Where both sides have registrations and overlapping interests, negotiated coexistence or a limited surrender of unused goods can resolve matters more efficiently than a contested decision.

Partial revocation by class headings versus specific goods

Precision in the specification determines the outcome. A request framed against broad class headings casts a wide net but invites the proprietor to preserve the class by proving use of the relevant goods within it. A request drafted against specific goods is harder to defeat where those goods are genuinely unused. Defenders should mirror this precision, offering proof calibrated to the exact goods challenged rather than diffuse evidence spread thinly across the whole class.

Timelines, fees, TPTO decision types and appeal routes

Once a trademark non-use revocation turkey request is filed, the TPTO administers the proceeding on a documentary basis. The Office notifies the registered owner, who has one month from notification to submit its response and evidence of genuine use. The proprietor’s evidence and any applicant reply are considered before the TPTO issues a decision. 

Official fees are set out in the TPTO fee schedule and are payable on filing; the schedule is updated periodically and should be checked before submission. Decisions take one of three principal forms: full revocation, partial revocation limited to specified goods or services, or rejection of the request where genuine use is established for the entire challenged specification.

How to calculate deadlines

Deadlines run from the date of service of the relevant TPTO notification. Counsel must diarise the service date carefully and calculate the response window from that point, building in time for evidence collection, translation and, for foreign owners, communication with the registered attorney. Missing the response window can be fatal to a defence, so conservative deadline management is essential.

When and how to escalate to judicial review

A party dissatisfied with a TPTO decision may bring an action before the Ankara Civil IP Court (Ankara Fikri ve Sınai Haklar Hukuk Mahkemesi – Ankara FSHHM), which has exclusive jurisdiction over such actions, within two months of notification of the decision. Jurisprudence from the higher courts continues to inform how genuine use and revocation grounds are interpreted. Grounds for challenge typically focus on the assessment of the evidence, the application of the five-year period, and the proper scope of any partial revocation. Because the appellate record builds on the TPTO file, the quality of the first-instance evidence bundle largely determines appeal prospects.

Practical checklist and sample evidence package

A disciplined checklist turns the abstract standard of genuine use into an actionable preparation plan. Counsel defending or attacking a trademark non-use revocation turkey action should work through the following before filing or responding.

• Confirm the relevant five-year window from registration or last use.
• Map the specification good by good and identify which items are supported by evidence.
• Collect dated sales invoices showing Turkish buyers and branded goods across the period.
• Add transactional corroboration, bank records, delivery notes, customs documents.
• Assemble market-facing proof, Turkey-targeted advertising, packaging, e-commerce listings with archived dates.
• Gather distribution evidence, contracts covering Turkish territory and related stock records.
• Obtain corroborative statements from distributors or retailers, backed by underlying documents.
• Prepare certified translations of all foreign-language materials.
• Verify the power of attorney and attorney authority for foreign owners.
• Retain originals and certified copies for potential authentication on appeal.
• Index every item with a consistent naming convention, date and source.
• Confirm the fee and filing formalities against the current TPTO schedule.

Sample index of evidence

Build the evidence index so a decision-maker can navigate it without effort. Number each exhibit, state its date, describe its source, and note the specific good or service and claim it supports. A clean index, for example, “Exhibit 4: Sales invoice no. 2023-118, dated within the relevant window, buyer in Istanbul, goods in the challenged class”, signals a well-prepared file and helps the TPTO tie each document to the genuine-use standard.

Comparison table: what the TPTO accepts versus what often fails

Conclusion

Trademark non-use revocation Turkey is now an administrative, evidence-driven contest before the TPTO, and success turns almost entirely on preparation. Whether you are clearing a blocking registration or defending your own, the same discipline applies: define the five-year window precisely, map evidence to specific goods, and assemble dated, Turkey-anchored proof of genuine use. Brand owners who maintain a rolling evidence archive and act promptly on deadlines will hold the advantage. For a pre-filing use audit or an evidence package review tailored to your Turkish portfolio, contact the intellectual property team through Global Law Experts.

Sources

1. Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (TÜRKPATENT)
2. Industrial Property Code No. 6769 (Mevzuat)
3. Resmî Gazete (Official Gazette of the Republic of Türkiye)
4. Danıştay (Council of State)
5. Yargıtay (Court of Cassation)
6. WIPO Lex
7. Türkiye Barolar Birliği (Union of Turkish Bar Associations)
8. Istanbul Bar Association