Case Introduction
As the client's business continued to expand, they decided to deepen their international presence by registering their trademark in countries such as Turkey to safeguard their brand in advance. Upon receiving the mandate, our company first conducted a preliminary search for the trademark application and discovered that an identical trademark had already been applied for in Turkey and was in the publication phase. To successfully register their trademark and protect their rights, the client decided to file an opposition against the prior application. After comprehensively collecting evidence, our company provided proof of the client's prior use of the trademark to demonstrate that the client's company was the true owner of the trademark. Upon review, the Turkish authorities accepted our position, acknowledging that the trademark belonged to our client, and rejected the prior trademark application, resulting in our victory.
While actively representing the client in responding to the trademark squatting by others, our company also submitted a trademark registration application for the client in Turkey. However, this application was temporarily rejected due to the existence of the prior trademark. Our company subsequently filed a response, arguing that the prior trademark was invalidated due to our victory in the opposition case. Ultimately, the client's trademark application passed the review and was published.
During the publication period, however, a local competitor company, which is well-known in Turkey and ranked among the top 500 enterprises, filed an opposition. The opponent claimed that the client's trademark shared similar alphabetical components with their prior trademark, and if registered in Turkey, it would inevitably cause confusion among ordinary consumers. Considering the opponent's popularity in Turkey, responding to the case presented certain difficulties. Our company attached great importance to this case, forming a special task force to prepare materials and respond to the opposition. After nearly a year of procedural handling, the Turkish authorities ruled that the reasons put forward by the opponent were unfounded and approved the client's trademark registration.
Shortly thereafter, news came from overseas that the opponent had appealed the official ruling. Building on our previous victory, we confidently responded to the appeal. Ultimately, the Turkish authorities once again rejected the opponent's request, affirming that the trademark was first used by our client, had already been registered in China and several other countries, and was used in Turkey earlier than the opponent. The client was the true owner of the trademark. This ruling was final, and the Turkish authorities subsequently issued a registration certificate, marking the successful registration of the client's trademark.
Case Commentary
This case represents one of the most complex examples of overseas rights protection in recent years, spanning four years and undergoing multiple legal procedures including applications, oppositions, reviews, and litigation, ultimately resulting in a victory. It not only restored the rights and interests of the parties involved but also set an example for future overseas rights protection efforts. This case demonstrates the ability to resolve disputes within the international legal framework and encourages more people to bravely defend their rights through legal channels.
鄂公网安备 42010402001546号