The 2017 entry into force of Türkiye’s Industrial Property Code No. 6769 (IP Code) marked a pivotal moment in the country’s trade mark law regime. Among its key innovations is the formal differentiation between the invalidation of trade marks, which remained within the competence of the courts (Article 25), and their revocation, which is delegated to the administrative authority, namely the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (TÜRKPATENT), under Article 26 IP Code. This provision introduced, for the first time, an administrative procedure for revocation based on post-registration circumstances, a matter traditionally reserved to the judiciary. The reform was primarily inspired by the EU’s trade mark law harmonization efforts, with Article 26 IP Code closely mirroring the revocation grounds set out in Directive 2015/24361 and Regulation 2017/1001.2 Its objective was to introduce a more efficient, non-judicial mechanism for removing trade marks from the register. Yet Türkiye’s implementation was neither immediate nor absolute. Despite the IP Code entering into force in 2017, Article 26 remained dormant for seven years under Article 192(1)(a) and the transitional provision of Article 4, only becoming operational on 10 January 2024. During this time, the courts continued to hear revocation actions, including those based on non-use.

With Article 26 now in effect, its legal and institutional design is no longer a theoretical concern but a practical and procedural reality. Among the four revocation grounds enumerated in Article 26(1), the non-use of a trade mark, defined as a lack of genuine use in Türkiye for five consecutive years without just cause, has emerged as the predominant basis for administrative revocation. This is neither surprising nor insignificant, given that non-use has long burdened the Turkish trade mark system by contributing to an overcrowded registry filled with dormant marks that merely hinder legitimate commercial activity. Türkiye receives more than 180 000 trade mark applications annually, placing it among the top jurisdictions globally in terms of volume.3 In this context, a well-functioning administrative mechanism for clearing unused registrations is not merely desirable; it is imperative for maintaining a balanced and accessible trade mark ecosystem.4 In theory, the administrative revocation process under Article 26 offers significant efficiency gains over judicial litigation. It simplifies the procedure, reduces costs and removes procedural layers that have historically rendered revocation actions lengthy and burdensome.5 However, these efficiency gains are dependent upon the system’s procedural integrity. How the new process is structured, and more crucially, how it is interpreted and applied, will determine whether the objectives of accessibility, timeliness and legal certainty are truly met. As is often the case with administrative mechanisms that touch on core property rights, the challenge lies in balancing procedural economy with the fundamental guarantees of due process.

This article examines the procedural architecture of Türkiye’s post-2024 administrative revocation regime through the lens of three interrelated legal questions that go to the heart of the system’s design. First, it considers whether an appeal against a revocation decision issued by TÜRKPATENT suspends the enforcement of that decision, or whether the decision remains immediately effective notwithstanding pending judicial review. Second, it explores whether the courts, when reviewing such administrative decisions, are permitted to consider evidence not submitted during the administrative phase, or whether judicial review is strictly confined to the existing administrative record. Third, it analyses whether non-use of a trade mark can still be raised as a counterclaim in infringement proceedings before the courts, or whether such matters now fall exclusively within the competence of the administrative authority. These questions are not merely doctrinal; they bear immediate practical significance. Their resolution will shape how trade mark owners, applicants, defendants, legal representatives and institutions alike engage with the administrative system. For instance, if appeals lack suspensive effect, trade mark registrations may be struck from the registry before courts have had the opportunity to scrutinize the legality of TÜRKPATENT’s decision. If judicial review is confined to the administrative record, the parties will need to be exceptionally diligent in their evidentiary submissions during the initial proceedings, especially given the compressed time frames of one or two months. If counterclaims are no longer permitted in infringement litigation, defendants will lose a crucial procedural defence, fundamentally altering the dynamics of trade mark enforcement.

Notably, while the legal text of Article 26 offers a broad procedural blueprint, the practical implications of its implementation remain to be fully determined. Initial administrative practice and emerging case law will undoubtedly shape the system’s contours. Yet even at this early stage, it is apparent that procedural asymmetries and legal uncertainties risk undermining the very efficiencies the reform was designed to promote. As highlighted in the early months of implementation, stakeholders are encountering significant interpretative ambiguities, particularly regarding the enforceability of administrative decisions pending appeal, the scope of judicial review, and the strategic use of non-use claims in litigation. These ambiguities are not incidental; they reflect deeper tensions between administrative streamlining and legal protection, and between regulatory ambition and constitutional principle.

The existing literature has predominantly focused on the substantive bases for trade mark revocation, such as non-use, genericide or misleading use, and their alignment with EU law. Far less attention has been paid to the procedural configuration of the new regime, even though procedural choices play a decisive role in shaping rights outcomes. This article aims to fill that gap by offering a focused analysis of procedural mechanisms, as they exist in both domestic law and comparative European practice.

To achieve this, the article adopts a multidimensional methodological approach. First, it offers a doctrinal analysis of the relevant provisions of the IP Code, its implementing regulations (including the March 2025 amendments) and the applicable rules of administrative and civil procedure. Second, it examines recent jurisprudence, including decisions by the Court of Cassation and the specialized IP courts in Ankara, to identify how the new rules are being interpreted in practice. Third, it draws on a comparative analysis of EU and Member State systems, particularly those of Germany, France and Spain, to situate Türkiye’s model within the broader European trend towards administrative cancellation. Fourth, it incorporates empirical data derived from the first 6 months of implementation in Türkiye, covering more than 120 revocation applications filed before TÜRKPATENT, including data on grounds invoked, procedural outcomes, timelines and appeal rates.

Taken together, these methodological components enable a comprehensive assessment of both the legal structure and real-world functioning of Türkiye’s administrative revocation regime. The findings are not only of academic interest but bear immediate relevance for institutional reform. As trade mark owners and legal practitioners adjust to this new procedural landscape, they must do so in the absence of settled doctrine, clear procedural guidance or consolidated judicial interpretation. This article aims to support this transition by offering a coherent account of the regime’s foundational tensions and suggesting principled pathways forward. In doing so, it recognizes that the effectiveness of any administrative trade mark revocation system cannot be evaluated solely by reference to speed or cost. It must also be assessed in terms of its capacity to respect property rights, ensure due process and integrate with existing litigation frameworks. Without careful attention to these dimensions, the promise of efficiency risks becoming a source of procedural fragility.

Source: https://academic.oup.com/jiplp/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jiplp/jpaf074/8322384