Glass Sector Competitor's Two Trademarks Invalidated for Likelihood of Confusion

A long-established glass manufacturer with prior registrations in Class 21 filed an invalidity action against a competitor's two later-filed trademarks before the Bakırköy 1st Court of Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights.

Why Was the Bad-Faith Claim Rejected?

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant registered its marks in bad faith. However, the court found that bad faith at the time of filing could not be proven by concrete evidence. Although the court-appointed expert suggested the defendant may have acted with a 'stockpiling' motive, the court declined to adopt this view since it had not been raised in the original complaint.

Scope of the Invalidity Order

After a visual, phonetic, and conceptual comparison, the court found that the dominant element of both parties' marks was identical and likely to cause direct or indirect confusion among average consumers. Accordingly:

• Defendant's first mark: partially invalidated in Class 21 for glass, porcelain, and ceramic decorative items.
• Defendant's second mark: fully invalidated across all Class 21 goods and ordered removed from the register.

Key Takeaway

This decision confirms that earlier mark holders may successfully challenge confusingly similar later registrations under Article 6(1) of the Industrial Property Code. Bad-faith claims require solid, concrete evidence tied to the filing date — mere suspicion or expert inference is insufficient.