Observations against a trademark opposition are the written defence filed within one month of TÜRKPATENT notifying you of the opposition. It is the only document through which you exercise your right to be heard; if it is not filed in time, the file is decided on the opponent's case alone.
An effective submission has four components:
- A proof-of-use request (where the conditions are met) — the strongest tool, and available only within this period
- A defence at the level of the signs — why are the marks not similar?
- A defence at the level of goods and services — why do the scopes not overlap?
- An evidence bundle — documents supporting the assertions
We deal with the process as a whole in An Opposition Has Been Filed Against My Trademark; this article concentrates on the submission itself.
First: The Proof-of-Use Request
Make this the first item in your submission, because once missed it cannot be recovered.
Under Article 19, where the opposition rests on likelihood of confusion and the mark relied on has been registered in Türkiye for at least five years at your application or priority date, you may require the opponent to prove that they have genuinely used it for the goods and services relied on, or to show proper reasons for non-use.
The procedural rules are strict:
- The request must be made within the observation period.
- It must be express and in writing — an implicit hint within the submission may not suffice.
- On such a request the opponent is given one month to file evidence; material filed later is disregarded.
The consequence: if the opponent cannot prove use, the opposition is rejected. If they prove it in part, the opposition is examined only for the goods and services proved.
In practice this tool eliminates a substantial share of oppositions founded on marks registered long ago and left unused. The scope of the use requirement is set out in The Use Requirement and the Five-Year Rule.
Defence at the Level of the Signs
The similarity assessment operates on three planes; address each separately. A blanket "our marks are different" adds nothing.
Visual
Letter count, syllable structure, word length, difference in initial letters, typography and figurative elements. A difference in initial letters carries weight because that is where the consumer's attention falls first.
Phonetic
How the marks sound in Turkish pronunciation. If stress, syllable count and sound harmony differ, say so explicitly.
Conceptual
The meaning the marks evoke. Even where two marks are formally close, clear and distinct meanings may reduce the likelihood of confusion.
The weak-element argument
If the shared word is common in the sector or descriptive, its distinctiveness is low and it does not establish similarity on its own. The concrete way to show this is to put other registrations containing the same word before the Office: if several proprietors use the term in the market, it cannot be monopolised.
The criteria in detail: Likelihood of Confusion.
Defence at the Level of Goods and Services
Two conditions must be met together. Even where the signs are similar, an opposition may fail if the goods and services are not close.
What to establish:
- Separation of sub-groups. Being in the same class is not enough; state that you are in different sub-groups.
- Distribution channels. If the products are not sold on the same shelves or the same platforms, say so.
- Target audience. Where one is aimed at professional buyers and the other at end consumers, levels of attention differ and the likelihood of confusion falls.
- Absence of complementarity. State where the products are not used together and cannot substitute for one another.
The Evidence Bundle: What Proves What
| Defence | Evidence to file |
|---|---|
| The mark has become known through use | Dated invoices, advertising spend, press coverage, sales volumes |
| The shared word is weak or common | A list of other registrations containing the same term |
| The markets diverge | Catalogues, price lists, target customer documents, sales channel records |
| We have coexisted for years | Records showing both marks in use without confusion over time |
| You hold an earlier right | Earliest dated use documents, web archive records |
Arguments That Do Not Work
- "Our logos are completely different." In composite marks the word element is more dominant than the figurative one; consumers remember a brand by its name.
- "I added a word at the end." If the addition is descriptive ("textile", "group", "digital") it adds no distinctiveness.
- "I have used it for years." Insufficient on its own; use must be proved with dated documents.
- "Nobody has ever confused them." The law does not require confusion to have occurred — a likelihood suffices.
- "Our companies are in different cities." Protection arises nationwide; geographical separation is not a defence on its own.
An Alternative to Observations: Agreement
In some files the quickest result comes not from continuing the legal argument but from agreeing with the other side. If the opponent consents to the registration of your mark, the matter closes. This is realistic particularly where the parties operate in different product groups: Registration with a Letter of Consent.
Where the opposition targets only certain items, narrowing the scope to render it moot is another option. In deciding, weigh whether the items to be removed lie at the centre of your business.
After the Observations
The Office decides having considered the opposition and your observations together. If the decision goes against you, you may appeal to the Re-examination and Evaluation Board within two months of notification: My Trademark Application Was Refused — What Now?
Let Us Prepare Your Submission
Observations are a step in which timing and procedure are decisive; a missed proof-of-use request in particular cannot be recovered. Share the opposition, and our legal protection team will build the defence strategy and evidence list before the deadline.