No Monopoly Over Geographical Terms: Trademark Infringement Claim Dismissed in Fashion Sector

In its decision No. E.2024/53 K.2024/246, Bakırköy 1st Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights Court dismissed a trademark infringement claim, ruling that the defendant used the geographical sign as a product model name rather than as a trademark, constituting honest commercial use.

Case Summary

The plaintiff holds registrations in Classes 25 and 35 and alleged that the defendant used the same geographical term on an online marketplace. The plaintiff sought infringement injunction and 20,000 TRY in moral damages.

Court's Assessment

The defendant is a long-established textile company (founded 1955) with a registered well-known trademark. The plaintiff's mark is based on a geographical place name and is therefore weak. The defendant's own well-known mark was the dominant sign while the plaintiff's geographical term appeared only as a product model descriptor. From the consumer's perspective, the plaintiff's term would not be perceived as a separate trademark. This constituted honest commercial use under Article 7/5 of the Industrial Property Code, consistent with a prior Yargıtay-approved decision. All claims were dismissed.

Key Legal Principles

• Geographical marks are weak: Place-name marks offer narrower protection against third-party uses.
• Model name use is not infringement: Using a term as a product model name may qualify as honest use under Article 7/5.
• Consumer perception is decisive: The key question is which mark is dominant and whether source confusion arises.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.