Bad Faith Trade Mark Filings in Türkiye Under Article 6(9)

Trade mark squatting is a persistent challenge in Türkiye, particularly for foreign brands that have not yet registered their marks locally. The Industrial Property Code No. 6769 addresses this through Article 6(9), which provides that a trade mark application shall be refused upon opposition if it was filed in bad faith. This provision, classified as a relative ground for refusal, is one of the most effective tools available to foreign brand owners seeking to combat opportunistic local filings.

What Constitutes Bad Faith

The IPC does not define “bad faith” explicitly. Its meaning has been developed through TÜRKPATENT decisions and Turkish court jurisprudence. Bad faith is assessed through a combined subjective and objective test: what did the applicant know at the time of filing (the subjective element), and would reasonable and experienced persons in the field regard that conduct as falling short of acceptable commercial standards (the objective element)?

Bad faith does not require proof of outright fraud or dishonesty in the strict legal sense. Conduct that falls below the standards of fair commercial dealing can constitute bad faith even without deliberate deceit.

Indicators of Bad Faith

TÜRKPATENT and the Turkish IP courts have identified a range of circumstances that indicate bad faith. The most commonly recognised indicators include:

• Use of an identical or very similar mark: Filing a mark that replicates the word element, device, font, colour scheme, or overall trade dress of another party’s mark, particularly when the original mark is distinctive or original enough that coincidental creation is implausible.
• Prior commercial relationship: The applicant was a former agent, distributor, licensee, or business partner of the brand owner and became aware of the mark through that relationship. This directly engages Article 6septies of the Paris Convention, which obliges member states to provide remedies against unauthorised registration by agents or representatives.
• Portfolio of third-party brands: The applicant has a pattern of registering marks that correspond to well-known or established brands owned by unrelated parties, suggesting a systematic strategy of squatting rather than genuine brand development.
• Same sector, no independent creation: The applicant operates in the same industry as the brand owner and could not plausibly claim to have developed the mark independently.
• Monetary demands or blocking behaviour: After registration, the applicant demands payment from the original brand owner, seeks to force a licensing arrangement, or uses the registration to threaten infringement proceedings — all suggesting that the registration was obtained for leverage rather than genuine commercial use.
• No genuine use of the mark: The applicant has not used the mark in commerce and shows no evidence of genuine intent to do so, further supporting the inference that the filing was opportunistic.

The Agent or Representative Scenario

A particularly common situation involves a Turkish distributor, agent, or business partner who registers the foreign brand owner’s mark in their own name without consent. Türkiye, as a party to the Paris Convention, implements Article 6septies through its bad faith provisions. The existence of a business relationship, combined with the lack of authorisation to register, is treated as strong evidence of bad faith. Documentary evidence of the relationship — distribution agreements, agency contracts, correspondence, invoices — is typically decisive.

Procedural Pathways

Opposition Under Article 6(9)

The foreign brand owner may file an opposition during the two-month publication period, citing bad faith as the ground. The opposition must set out the facts and circumstances supporting the bad faith claim and be accompanied by evidence. A bare assertion of bad faith without supporting particulars is insufficient.

Invalidation Under Article 25

If the mark has already been registered (because the opposition window was missed or the opposition failed), the brand owner may file an invalidation action before the specialised IP courts. Bad faith is one of the grounds for which no time limit applies — unlike other relative grounds, which are generally subject to a five-year limitation period. This means a registration obtained in bad faith can be challenged at any point during its validity.

Evidence Strategy

A successful bad faith claim typically requires evidence establishing:

• The opponent’s prior use or reputation in the mark (internationally and, ideally, within Türkiye)
• The applicant’s knowledge or awareness of the opponent’s mark at the time of filing
• Circumstances suggesting improper motive: the relationship between the parties, the applicant’s filing history, any demands for payment, absence of genuine commercial use, and similarity extending beyond the word mark to trade dress, colour scheme, or logo design

Turkish IP courts are experienced with squatting cases and generally sympathetic to legitimate brand owners who present clear evidence. The specialised IP courts in Ankara, Istanbul, and Izmir handle a significant volume of bad faith cases annually.

Strategic Recommendations

• Register before entering the market: The most effective defence against squatting is pre-emptive registration. File your marks in Türkiye before appointing local agents or distributors.
• Include IP clauses in commercial agreements: Contracts with Turkish distributors, agents, or partners should include explicit provisions prohibiting the agent from registering the brand owner’s marks and requiring assignment of any registrations obtained.
• Monitor the Turkish Bulletin: Watch for third-party filings of your marks. Early detection within the two-month opposition window is far more efficient than post-registration litigation.
• Preserve evidence of relationships: Maintain records of all correspondence, agreements, and transactions with Turkish commercial partners. This evidence is critical in agent-squatting scenarios.

Key Takeaway

Article 6(9) provides foreign brand owners with a robust mechanism to challenge bad faith trade mark filings in Türkiye. The test considers both the applicant’s subjective knowledge and whether their conduct meets objective standards of commercial fairness. Agent or distributor registrations, portfolio squatting, and opportunistic filings can all be challenged through opposition or court-based invalidation with no time limit. Prevention through early registration and contractual safeguards remains the most reliable strategy.