Background
The plaintiff, a company engaged in the manufacture, import, and domestic sale of bicycles and related products, alleged that it had registered and continuously used a particular term as the dominant element of its trade name long before the defendant’s registration. The defendant registered a trade name containing the same term in 2022 and operated in areas including online sales of textiles, gifts, toys, jewelry, and other goods, as well as activities listed in its registry record.
The plaintiff sought deletion of the defendant’s confusing trade name or, alternatively, removal of the shared term. The defendant filed no response. The İstanbul 2nd Commercial Court rejected the action, reasoning that the parties operated in different sectors, their customers were unlikely to confuse them, and the conditions for deletion of the defendant’s trade name were therefore not satisfied. The plaintiff appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The İstanbul Regional Court of Appeal held that the defendant’s use of the shared term was capable of creating visual and phonetic confusion and was contrary to commercial honesty under Article 52 of the Turkish Commercial Code. The court found that the shared term was the dominant and conspicuous element of both trade names, while the remaining wording lacked distinguishing force.
Because the plaintiff had registered the term first, the priority principle gave it the right to use that element in its trade name. The appellate court therefore accepted the appeal, set aside the trial court’s judgment under Article 353(1)(b)(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, entered judgment for the plaintiff without ordering a retrial, and directed that the shared term be deleted from the defendant’s registered trade name. The judgment remained open to appeal to the Court of Cassation within two weeks after service of the reasoned decision.
Key Takeaways
- A later trade name may violate Turkish trade-name protections when it repeats the dominant, distinctive element of an earlier registered name.
- Visual and phonetic similarity can establish a likelihood of confusion even when the companies’ registered business activities differ.
- Where the record requires no further proceedings, a regional appellate court may reverse and enter judgment on the merits rather than remand.
Why It Matters
The decision rejects the view that different lines of business necessarily eliminate actionable confusion between trade names. For companies operating in Turkey, the dominant impression created by a name—and priority of registration—may carry greater weight than differences in the parties’ stated business activities.
The ruling also illustrates the practical remedy available under the Turkish Commercial Code: a court may order the offending element removed from a later registrant’s trade name when its use is contrary to commercial honesty.