Bad-Faith Trademark Filings in Turkey: How to Spot and Cancel Them

A bad-faith trademark filing is an application, and the resulting registration, made in a way that is incompatible with honest commercial practice, with the aim of blocking the true owner of a mark, selling the mark back to them or taking unfair advantage of their effort and reputation. Under Article 6(9) of Industrial Property Law No. 6769 (SMK), applications filed in bad faith are refused upon opposition; if the mark has already been registered, invalidation can be sought in court on the same ground (Article 25(1)). Moreover, the five-year acquiescence rule (Article 25(6)) does not protect a bad-faith registration.

Below we cover the legal meaning of bad faith, the five most common patterns, how bad faith is proven and, in table form, which route to use and within which deadline.

What Does Bad Faith Mean in Trademark Law?

In trademark law, bad faith means that the applicant seeks registration not to indicate the commercial origin of its own goods and services, but to block someone else's rights, to turn the mark into a bargaining chip or to take advantage of recognition that someone else has built. The law does not define the concept; the assessment is made by looking at all the circumstances of the specific case.

The assessment follows three basic rules:

• The reference point is the filing date. Bad faith is assessed according to the applicant's knowledge and purpose at the moment the application was filed. Later events (an offer to sell, non-use, new applications) help to shed light on the intention at that moment.
• The burden of proof lies with the party alleging it. Under the general principle of the Turkish Civil Code, good faith is presumed; the party alleging bad faith has to establish it with concrete evidence.
• Bad faith is a separate ground. It is a ground for refusal and invalidation independent of the likelihood-of-confusion assessment. In practice, however, the fact that the signs are identical or very similar is one of the strongest indicators of bad faith.

The impact of bad faith becomes clear in the acquiescence rule. Under Article 25(6) of the SMK, the holder of an earlier right who knowingly remains silent about the use of a later mark for five years can no longer seek invalidation; but this limit does not apply if the later registration was made in bad faith. We explained the general logic of priority in our article on who owns a trademark in Turkey.

What Are the Most Common Patterns of Bad-Faith Registration?

Bad-faith applications usually follow a handful of familiar patterns. Recognizing the pattern correctly also determines which legal basis and which route to use.

1. Filings by a former distributor, dealer or agent

This is the most common scenario: a brand's distributor, dealer or agent in Turkey files the mark in its own name without the owner's permission. It usually happens when the contract becomes strained or is about to end.

The SMK contains specific provisions for this situation. An application by a commercial agent or representative, without permission and without a justified reason, to register an identical or indistinguishably similar mark in its own name is refused upon the owner's opposition (Article 6(2)). If registration has already taken place, the owner can ask the court to prohibit the use and to transfer the registration to the owner (Article 10). Unlike invalidation, a transfer claim aims to move the mark into your name in the register.

Take a plainly fictitious example: the Turkish distributor of "Lumora," a foreign-based kitchen equipment brand, files the mark in its own name the week it learns that its contract will not be renewed. If the brand owner is monitoring the Bulletin, it opposes on the basis of Articles 6(2) and 6(9); the distribution agreement, order records and termination correspondence form the backbone of the file. If it misses the publication, it seeks transfer of the registration through a court action under Article 10.

2. Hijacking a foreign trademark in Turkey before its owner files

Filing in Turkey for a mark that is known abroad but has not yet been filed in Turkey, ahead of its owner, is a typical hijacking method. For marks that are well known within the meaning of the Paris Convention, Article 6(4) provides a separate ground of opposition. For marks that do not reach the well-known threshold, evidence showing that the applicant knew of the mark and filed in order to appropriate it can produce a result through Article 6(9).

The most effective protection against this pattern is to file in Turkey within the priority period. For the filing route and representation rules foreign companies must follow in Turkey, see our guide to trademark registration in Turkey for foreign companies.

3. Trademark hoarding and bulk filings made for resale

Some applicants file large numbers of marks without any intention of using them, especially names that belong to others or are about to reach the market. The aim is to sell the mark to the true owner when that owner appears. The applicant's portfolio in the register, meaning the other marks recorded in the same person's name, is the clearest indicator of this pattern.

To see the portfolio, you can search the TÜRKPATENT register by applicant name. The fact that the same person has filed many marks belonging to others, across unrelated sectors, paints a far more convincing picture than a single application. Add a dated printout of the search and, if needed, an official register extract to the file; under the TÜRKPATENT 2026 fee schedule, the fee for issuing a trademark register extract (item 02.01.05) is TRY 2,890.

4. Filings made to block a competitor

Filing a name that a competitor has started using or has announced for launch, in order to block its entry into the market, is another typical form of bad faith. A name seen at a trade fair, in a business meeting or in the press being filed in someone else's name within a few days is a strong indicator in terms of timing. When trade fair participation records, the date of the launch announcement and meeting notes are placed side by side with the filing date, the chronology often speaks for itself.

5. Names of famous people, works or events

Filing the name of a well-known person, or the title of a known work or event, without permission can be refused upon the right holder's opposition under Article 6(6) (another person's name, copyright and other intellectual property rights). If it is shown that the application aims to commercially exploit the interest attached to that name, bad faith is raised as an additional ground.

Which Situations Do Not Amount to Bad Faith on Their Own?

Not every disputed application is made in bad faith, and a single irregularity is not enough to characterize a filing as a bad-faith trademark filing. In practice, the following are difficult to treat as bad faith on their own: the applicant not having started to use the mark yet, a broadly drafted list of goods and services, or a sign consisting of a common word that could easily have been chosen by coincidence.

These circumstances gain meaning when combined with other indicators. For example, non-use considered together with a recent business relationship and an offer to sell creates a strong picture. By contrast, a bad-faith claim against a business that chose a common word independently of you weakens the file; in such a case it is more realistic to focus on grounds such as likelihood of confusion or prior use.

How Is Bad Faith Proven?

Bad faith is not a fact that can be seen directly but a conclusion drawn from indicators. The strength of the file therefore depends on how well the pieces of evidence complement each other. The main types of useful evidence are:

• Relationship documents: Distribution or dealership agreements, order and invoice records, partnership or cooperation documents, minutes of business meetings.
• Correspondence: Emails and messages showing that the applicant knew of the mark or was aware of your plans for it.
• Filing portfolio: Other applications in the same person's name that are identical or similar to marks belonging to others.
• Timing: The application being filed immediately after a trade fair, a launch, the termination of a contract or your own foreign filing.
• Offer to sell: Written offers to sell or license the mark to you or to your competitors.
• Originality of the sign: Verbatim copying of an invented word, an original logo or the same typeface and color scheme; similarity that cannot be explained by coincidence.

It is important that the evidence is dated, that foreign-language documents are submitted with translations where required, and that everything is placed on file with a chronological summary. In an opposition to publication, Article 18(2) of the SMK requires the grounds to be submitted within the two-month period; the evidence should also be filed together with the opposition wherever possible.

Which Route, Within Which Deadline?

The right route depends on the stage the file has reached: if the application is at publication, oppose; if it has been registered, go to court. The table below summarizes the options.

Under the TÜRKPATENT 2026 schedule of trademark fees, the fee for an opposition to a published application (item 02.01.17) is TRY 1,150; a request for revocation for non-use involves the trademark revocation fee (02.01.30) of TRY 35,320 plus a revocation request deposit (02.01.31) of TRY 35,320. Current amounts should be checked against the TÜRKPATENT fee schedule, which is updated every year, and the official fees do not include attorney service fees. The costs of invalidation and declaratory actions are determined by court fees and expenses.

An invalidation decision is retroactive; under Article 27(1), the protection conferred on the mark is deemed never to have arisen. Once the decision becomes final, the mark is removed from the register. We discuss the difference between revocation and invalidation, and the transfer of revocation proceedings to the Office, in our article on trademark invalidation and revocation. The filing and fee steps for an opposition are in our guide on filing a trademark opposition, and who is entitled to oppose is covered in our article on who can oppose a trademark application.

How Can a Bad-Faith Application Be Caught Early?

The cheapest and fastest response to an attempted bad-faith trademark filing is to stop the application before it is registered. To do that, you need to be able to see the two-month window in which the application is published. The preventive steps can be listed as follows:

1. File your trademark yourself first. Filing in Turkey and your target markets is the basic cure for the hijacking risk; do not miss the six-month priority period after your first foreign filing.
2. Monitor the Bulletin regularly. Professional Bulletin monitoring brings identical or similar applications to your attention before the opposition period expires.
3. Put a trademark clause in your contracts. In distribution, dealership and agency agreements, state expressly that the other party may not file the mark in its own name and agrees to assign it if it does.
4. Secure protection before sharing the name. If you have filed before meeting an investor, manufacturer or business partner, hijacking a name learned in that meeting largely loses its point.
5. Check the register periodically. Review, at regular intervals, new applications filed in the names of your former business partners and competitors.

If the application has already been registered and you want to weigh the general options together (prior use, revocation for non-use, the business relationship), the roadmap is in our article someone registered my brand name.

What Should You Do if the Bad-Faith Owner Offers to Sell?

Do not accept in haste, but do not ignore the offer either. A written offer to sell is often one of the strongest pieces of evidence of bad faith, so keep the offer itself and all correspondence in full. Conduct any discussions while stating clearly that you reserve your legal rights; negotiations that drag on without a written reservation can later give the other side material to argue that your position has been inconsistent.

When deciding, compare three options: the legal route (opposition or a lawsuit), acquiring the mark through negotiation, and changing your mark. The legal route takes time but sets a precedent; negotiation is fast but may encourage similar filings. If you decide to acquire the mark, the assignment must be made in writing and the assignment agreement must be notarized (Article 148(4)); an assignment not recorded in the register cannot be asserted against third parties acting in good faith (Article 148(5)).

If you are going to send the other side a written notice, its content must be drafted so that it does not conflict with a later opposition or lawsuit; we explain the points to watch in our article on the trademark cease-and-desist letter. Working with trademark attorneys authorized before TÜRKPATENT and with lawyers in court proceedings, Webx assesses opposition, invalidation and transfer options for your file as part of our legal protection in trademark disputes.

Conclusion

A bad-faith trademark filing is an abuse of the advantage the trademark system gives to the first filer, and the law provides strong tools against it. Key takeaways:

• Applications filed in bad faith are refused upon opposition (SMK Article 6(9)); if registered, their invalidation can be sought (Article 25).
• The five-year acquiescence rule does not protect a bad-faith registration.
• If a distributor or agent has registered the mark in its own name, you can ask for the mark to be transferred to you (Article 10).
• Bad faith is proven through indicators: the relationship, correspondence, portfolio, timing, offers to sell and the originality of the sign.
• The cheapest route is an opposition within two months of publication, which requires Bulletin monitoring.

Is your trademark facing a bad-faith filing?

Send us the application or registration number and the relationship documents you hold through our contact page; together we will establish where the opposition deadline stands, which grounds can be relied on and what is missing from the evidence file.