Opposition to a trademark application (marka başvurusuna itiraz) is, under article 18 of Industrial Property Law no. 6769 (Sınai Mülkiyet Kanunu, SMK), a legal remedy submitted to TÜRKPATENT within 2 months of the publication of the application in the Official Trademark Bulletin; the period is strict and cannot be extended. Whether an opposition is upheld depends largely on the assessment of similarity and likelihood of confusion (karıştırılma ihtimali) under SMK m. 6. This article deals with the opposition procedure, the similarity criteria and the YİDK stage.
When an undertaking’s new trademark application is published in the Bulletin, third parties operating in the same or a similar field and holders of earlier rights are given the opportunity to examine that application and, where necessary, to oppose it. Although the procedure is administrative in nature, its consequences directly affect the commercial life of the mark; for that reason the correct handling of the procedural steps and the time limits matters both for the opponent and for the applicant.
Key Takeaways
- The opposition period is 2 months from the date of publication in the Bulletin; that period is strict and cannot be extended.
- An opposition may be based on the absolute grounds for refusal in SMK m. 5 or on the relative grounds for refusal in m. 6.
- The similarity assessment is carried out by examining visual, aural and conceptual similarity together with the similarity of the goods and services.
- For 2026 the fee for opposing publication in the Bulletin is 1.150 TL, and the opposition is filed electronically through EPATS.
- Where an opposition is rejected, recourse may be had to the YİDK, and against a YİDK decision to the Ankara Civil Court for Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights.
What Is an Opposition to a Trademark Application?
An opposition to a trademark application is an administrative application made before TÜRKPATENT by third parties or by holders of earlier rights, asserting that a mark for which registration is sought falls within one of the grounds for refusal set out in the law. The opposition is a review mechanism that allows a mark to be examined before it is registered.
SMK m. 5 governs the absolute grounds for refusal (mutlak ret nedenleri), such as signs lacking the minimum distinctiveness required by the law, and those grounds are examined by TÜRKPATENT of its own motion. SMK m. 6, by contrast, governs the relative grounds for refusal (nispi ret nedenleri); those grounds are examined only upon the opposition of the interested party and form the core of the similarity assessment.
The absolute grounds for refusal include signs devoid of distinctive character, expressions used by everyone in the field of trade and signs contrary to public order. These grounds are examined of its own motion by the TÜRKPATENT examiners at the application stage; they may, however, also be raised by third parties at the opposition stage after publication. The relative grounds for refusal rest directly on the existence of an earlier right and arise only upon the opposition of the holder of that right.
The Opposition Period and Procedure
Under SMK m. 18, an opposition must be submitted to TÜRKPATENT in writing and with reasons within 2 months of the date on which the application was published in the Bulletin. This is a forfeiture period (hak düşürücü süre); missing it results in the loss of the right to oppose.
Who May File an Opposition?
An opposition may be filed by third parties relying on the absolute grounds for refusal, and equally by persons holding an earlier-dated right within the scope of SMK m. 48 relying on the relative grounds for refusal. The proprietor of an earlier mark, the holder of a trade name or the proprietor of a well-known mark may have a right to oppose on this basis.
How Is an Opposition Submitted?
Oppositions are submitted through EPATS, TÜRKPATENT’s electronic filing system, using an e-Devlet password or a qualified electronic signature. The petition of opposition must set out in concrete terms the ground for refusal relied on, the earlier right and the reasons, and supporting documents must be attached.
Once the opposition has been submitted, notification is served on the applicant, who may submit a petition in reply within the period specified. In the reply the applicant may argue that there is no similarity between the marks, that the goods and services are different, or may raise procedural defences such as the non-use defence (kullanmama def’i). This exchange of pleadings forms the file on which the TÜRKPATENT examiner’s final decision is based.
How Is the Similarity Assessment Carried Out?
Under SMK m. 6/1 the similarity assessment is carried out by examining together the identity or similarity of the marks and the identity or similarity of the goods and services they cover. The aim is to establish whether there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public. The assessment is always made according to the circumstances of the particular case and cannot be reduced to a single criterion.
Visual, Aural and Conceptual Similarity
The examination is conducted on three levels: the visual similarity of the marks in terms of their spelling and appearance, their aural similarity in terms of pronunciation, and their conceptual similarity in terms of the meaning they carry. A strong similarity in only one of these three elements may still lead to the conclusion that there is a likelihood of confusion.
For example, where two marks are written differently but are pronounced in the same way, aural similarity comes to the fore. In conceptual similarity, what is taken as the basis is the meaning or image the marks evoke; expressions written in different languages but carrying the same meaning may also be assessed on this footing.
Similarity of Goods and Services
The similarity of the goods or services covered by the marks is assessed, independently of whether they fall within the same Nice class, according to whether they create the impression on the consumer that they originate from the same commercial source. The distribution channel, the target consumer group and the purpose of use are among the criteria taken into account in that assessment.
The Perception of the Average Consumer
The likelihood of confusion is determined according to the perception of the reasonably well informed and reasonably observant average consumer, who has no opportunity to compare the marks side by side. The consumer is taken to decide without seeing the marks next to one another, on the basis of the overall impression retained in memory.
Examples of Similarity Scenarios
In practice the similarity assessment varies with the particular case and cannot be predicted in advance by any general formula. Even so, frequently encountered scenarios may help in understanding the logic of the assessment.
Where two marks share the same root word and only a suffix or qualifying word has been added, that fact alone may not remove the likelihood of confusion, since the average consumer focuses on the dominant element of the mark. Where marks bearing the same name are used in different sectors, the similarity of the goods and services may remain weak, so that it may be harder for the opposition to be upheld. Where the logo differs but the word element is identical, aural similarity generally becomes the decisive factor.
In composite marks, it is determined which element of the mark is the dominant (principal) element, and the comparison is made on the basis of that element. For example, where a distinctive expression is used alongside a company name in a mark, it is generally the distinctive expression that comes to the fore in the comparison; generic or descriptive elements carry less weight. Colour, typeface and figurative elements also contribute to the overall impression, but are not decisive on their own.
Protection of Well-Known Trademarks
SMK m. 6/5 provides additional protection for well-known trademarks (tanınmış marka) even in respect of different goods and services. Where a mark is well known, the registration of an application in a different class may be refused if it carries the risk of taking unfair advantage of the reputation of the well-known mark, of damaging that reputation, or of impairing its distinctive character.
A claim of well-known status must be supported by concrete evidence at the opposition stage; market share, advertising expenditure, the geographical scope of registration and consumer awareness may count among that evidence. A mere assertion is not sufficient for well-known status to be accepted.
Unlike the classic similarity assessment, the protection of well-known marks may be applied without any requirement of similarity between the goods and services. Proprietors of well-known marks may therefore have a right to oppose applications outside their own sector as well. In order to benefit from this extended protection, however, it must be shown that the mark is in fact known in Turkey.
The Procedure After Opposition and the YİDK Stage
Upon an opposition, the TÜRKPATENT Trademarks Department (Markalar Dairesi Başkanlığı) re-examines the file and either upholds or rejects the opposition. Against those decisions either party may, within 2 months of notification of the decision, file an appeal with the Re-examination and Evaluation Board (Yeniden İnceleme ve Değerlendirme Kurulu, YİDK).
The YİDK decision is the final stage of the administrative procedure before TÜRKPATENT. Against a YİDK decision, proceedings may be brought before the Ankara Civil Court for Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights within 2 months of notification of the decision. Those proceedings are administrative in nature and seek the annulment of the YİDK decision.
In the course of the proceedings the court may, by ordering an examination by a court-appointed expert (bilirkişi), assess from a technical standpoint the similarity between the marks and the overlap between the goods and services. Although the expert report is not binding, it frequently forms a decisive point of reference in the court’s decision. If one of the parties challenges the outcome of the proceedings, the routes of appeal and cassation also remain open.
| Stage | Period | Authority |
|---|---|---|
| Opposition to publication | 2 months from publication | TÜRKPATENT Trademarks Department |
| Appeal to the YİDK | 2 months from notification of the decision | Re-examination and Evaluation Board |
| Court proceedings | 2 months from notification of the YİDK decision | Ankara Civil Court for Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights |
Trademark rights may in some processes intersect with personal data security; detailed information on the data security obligations of undertakings can be found in our article on notification of a data breach under the KVKK.
The Opposition Fee and Costs
As of 2026 the fee for opposing publication in the Bulletin is applied as 1.150 TL. Failure to pay the fee within the opposition period may result in the opposition being deemed not to have been filed. The current fee should be checked against TÜRKPATENT’s official schedule of charges.
The non-use defence is also a defence frequently raised in the opposition procedure. Where the earlier mark relied on as the basis of the opposition has been registered for more than 5 years, the applicant may request proof that the mark has genuinely been used. If use cannot be proved, the opposition is not taken into consideration in respect of that mark.
Defence Strategy from the Applicant’s Standpoint
For an applicant faced with an opposition, the first step is to identify correctly which ground for refusal and which earlier right the opposition is based on. That identification determines the arguments on which the petition in reply will be built.
Examining the opposition file and the annexed documents carefully at the outset clarifies which line of defence is to be followed. Preparing without loss of time allows the notified period for reply to be used efficiently.
The applicant may argue that there are sufficient distinguishing elements between the marks, that the target consumer group will not confuse them, or that the mark relied on in the opposition is not in use. In addition, narrowing the list of goods or services covered by the application may render part of the opposition ineffective. That strategy allows the registration to proceed at least in the classes that are not in dispute.
Common Mistakes in Trademark Oppositions
The most frequent mistake in the opposition procedure is waiting until the last day of the period. Where the collection of documents and the preparation of the petition are left to the last moment, a technical problem or a missing document may lead to the complete loss of the right to oppose.
Another mistake is for the opposition to focus only on the similarity of the trademark name and to neglect the comparison of the list of goods and services. Even where the trademark names are similar, the chance of the opposition being upheld diminishes if the parties operate in entirely different and unrelated sectors. Failing to reflect the scope of registration of the mark relied on accurately and in its current form in the petition is also a frequently encountered procedural mistake.
Oppositions filed without regard to the risk of the non-use defence may also create problems. Where the mark relied on has been registered for more than 5 years and is not actually in use, the opposing party should take into account in advance that it may be met with a request for proof of use.
Practices That Speed Up and Strengthen the Opposition Procedure
Presenting the opposition file strongly allows the procedure to progress more predictably. Attaching supporting documents such as the trademark registration certificate, examples of use, invoices and advertising materials to the petition helps to give concrete form to the assertions made.
Carrying out a search for similar trademarks before filing reduces both the risk of opposition and the risk of being met with an opposition in the future. TÜRKPATENT’s online trademark search system can be used to see whether identical or similar expressions have previously been registered. This preliminary search saves both the applicant and the holders of earlier rights time and expense.
When preparing visual comparison tables, it should also be noted how differences in upper and lower case, colour and typeface affect the overall impression. Trademark watch services are likewise useful for holders of earlier rights. If new applications published in the Bulletin are monitored regularly, the 2-month opposition period can comfortably be assessed when an application similar to one’s own mark is noticed. Once the period has been missed, the only route remaining against a registered mark is a longer and more costly one, such as an invalidity action (hükümsüzlük davası).
Points to Note When Preparing a Petition of Opposition
The petition of opposition must set out, item by item and in concrete terms, the mark relied on, the list of classes and the grounds of similarity. Oppositions drafted in general terms and containing no comparison table may carry less weight in the examination.
A visual comparison table, a list of the classes in common and, where they exist, examples of confusion actually occurring in the market strengthen the concreteness of the opposition. When calculating the period, official holidays should also be taken into account and the matter should not be left to the last day. If the number of pages of the documents annexed to the petition and the relevant class numbers are also set out in a separate list, it becomes easier for the TÜRKPATENT examiner to review the file. For detailed information, see TÜRKPATENT’s announcement on opposition periods.
In disputes concerning intellectual property and trademark law, an assessment specific to the file is important. To obtain information about the work of KCD Hukuk in the field of Intellectual Property and Trademark Law, the practice area page may be consulted.
Current fee schedules and official guides relating to trademark applications and the opposition procedure are available on the official website of the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office, while precedent decisions relating to proceedings that may be brought after an opposition is rejected can be reached through the Yargıtay (the Court of Cassation) decision search system.
Infringement of trademark rights may in some cases overlap with the offence of fraud; on this subject our article addressing the distinction between fraud and aggravated fraud may be consulted. For joint stock companies conducting trademark registration and opposition procedures, our article on the obligation of a joint stock company to retain a lawyer may also be useful. Where an opposition is rejected and a claim for a debt or for compensation arises in connection with a trademark, our article on the collection of a commercial debt may be of assistance. As for the scope of mediation as a procedural precondition in trademark disputes, our article on mandatory mediation in commercial actions may serve as a guide.
What Will the Other Side Do?
In the trademark opposition procedure the applicant also has a defence strategy; being prepared for that strategy determines with which evidence the opposition is to be strengthened.
The defence that the marks create no likelihood of confusion. The applicant may argue that the signs are sufficiently distinguished visually, aurally and conceptually. That assertion is met by a visual and aural analysis comparing the two marks side by side and by an assessment of the perception of the average consumer.
The defence that the classes of goods and services differ. It may be argued that there is no overlap according to the classification. In that case the assessment of sectoral proximity and of whether the consumer circles overlap becomes decisive.
The non-use defence. It may be argued that the opponent’s mark has not been put to genuine use in the last five years. That defence is met by proving genuine use through invoices, catalogues and advertising records.
The defence that well-known status has not been proved. That assertion is met with concrete evidence of well-known status supported by data on market share, advertising expenditure and consumer awareness.
The defence that the distinctive character is weak. The applicant may argue that the opponent’s mark is descriptive or of weak distinctive character and that the scope of protection should therefore be construed narrowly. That assertion is assessed by examining the scope of registration of the mark and similar uses in the sector.
Which defence comes to the fore varies with the actual appearance of the marks and their history of use; for that reason it is important to compile the evidence of use before the opposition stage. Bringing together invoices, catalogues and advertising records from the dates on which the mark was actually used, before the opposition stage, makes it easier to anticipate which defence will be raised. To assess in advance which defence your file will encounter, you may get in touch.
Frequently Asked Questions
How long is the period for opposing a trademark application?
The opposition period is 2 months from the date on which the application was published in the Official Trademark Bulletin, and that period cannot be extended.
On what grounds may an opposition be based?
An opposition may be based on the absolute grounds for refusal in SMK m. 5 or on the relative grounds for refusal in m. 6, and in particular on the likelihood of confusion.
Which elements are taken into account in the similarity assessment?
Visual, aural and conceptual similarity are assessed together with the similarity of the goods and services; the aim is to establish the likelihood of confusion on the part of the average consumer.
What can be done if the opposition is rejected?
Against a decision rejecting the opposition, an appeal may be filed with the Re-examination and Evaluation Board (YİDK) within 2 months of notification of the decision.
Can proceedings be brought against a YİDK decision?
Yes; annulment proceedings may be brought before the Ankara Civil Court for Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights within 2 months of notification of the YİDK decision.
What is the non-use defence?
Where the mark relied on as the basis of the opposition has been registered for more than 5 years, the applicant may request proof that the mark has genuinely been used; if use cannot be proved, the opposition is not taken into account in respect of that mark.
How much is the opposition fee?
As of 2026 the fee for opposing publication in the Bulletin is 1.150 TL, and the current amount should be checked against TÜRKPATENT’s official schedule.
How can the applicant reply to an opposition?
Within the period notified to them, the applicant may submit a petition in reply arguing that there is no similarity, that the goods and services differ, or raising defences such as the non-use defence.
Can an opposition be rendered ineffective by narrowing the list of goods or services?
Yes; removing the disputed classes from the list of goods or services covered by the application may reduce the effect of the opposition and allow the registration to proceed in the other classes.
Table of Periods
| Period | How long | Starting point |
|---|---|---|
| Opposition to TÜRKPATENT | 2 months | From the publication of the application in the Bulletin |
| Appeal to the YİDK | 2 months | From notification of the decision rejecting the opposition |
| Bringing annulment proceedings before the court | 2 months | From notification of the YİDK decision |
Sources
- Turkish Patent and Trademark Office
- Turkish Patent and Trademark Office
- Yargıtay (the Court of Cassation) Decision Search System
Related Articles
- Notification of a Data Breach under the KVKK: The 72-Hour Rule and Article 12
- The Distinction Between Fraud and Aggravated Fraud: Commission by Means of Information Systems
- The Obligation of a Joint Stock Company to Retain a Lawyer (2026)
- Collection of a Commercial Debt: The Procedure Step by Step, from Formal Notice to Enforcement
- Mandatory Mediation in Commercial Actions: Scope, Periods, Final Record
- Withdrawal and Expulsion from Membership in a Limited Liability Company
This article is for general information purposes and does not take the place of legal advice. Your particular situation requires a separate assessment of your file.
This article was prepared on the basis of the legislation in force as at 17.09.2026.
KCD Hukuk
Find out about our office
