Expert Said Invalidate, Court Said Dismiss: Likelihood of Confusion Is a Legal Question for the Judge

One of Turkey's leading retail textile companies, the holder of multiple registered trademarks, filed an invalidity action against a competitor's 'TST' mark on grounds of confusing similarity and bad faith.

Why Did the Court Dismiss Despite the Expert's Opinion?

The court-appointed expert concluded that invalidity conditions under Article 6(1) were met for certain services in Class 35. The court, however, reached the opposite conclusion:

• The plaintiff's marks are built around a distinctive word element not present in the defendant's 'TST' mark.
• Additional elements in the plaintiff's marks are slogans lacking independent distinctiveness.
• The defendant's mark is predominantly figurative, eliminating overall likelihood of confusion.

Citing Article 282 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court emphasized that likelihood of confusion is a legal question reserved for the judge — expert opinions are advisory, not binding.

Key Takeaway

This decision illustrates a critical principle: a favorable expert report does not guarantee victory. Courts evaluate likelihood of confusion independently, and marks must be compared as a whole — dominant elements first, slogans and secondary features last.