Similar Trademark Sign in Shopping Mall: Dismissed on Different Classes and 30-Year Coexistence

Case Overview

A textile company with registered marks in class 35 (retail assembly services) sued an AVM (shopping-centre) kitchenware retailer whose shopfront sign used the same distinctive word element. The first judgment was in the defendant's favour on "rights-based use" grounds, but the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal remanded for insufficient expert analysis. A new expert panel was appointed for the retrial.

Expert and Court Findings

• Class mismatch: The defendant's kitchenware shop operates in classes 8 and 21; this does not directly infringe the plaintiff's class-35 (retail services) registration.
• Long coexistence: A third-party licensor has used the same sign for kitchenware since 1990; the two brands have developed independent market identities over three decades.
• Differentiated use: The defendant used a variant of the registered mark, showing no intent to ride on the plaintiff's reputation.

Seven Years to a Final Ruling

Filed in 2017 and decided in 2024, this case illustrates how a deficient first-instance expert report can add years of litigation. The remand required a more thorough panel before the case could be resolved on the merits.

FAQ

Can a competitor in a different product class infringe my trademark?

Not automatically. Courts weigh the mark's reputation, length of coexistence, and actual confusion risk. Different classes weaken but do not eliminate an infringement claim.

What is trademark coexistence (yan yana yaşama) and how does it affect infringement?

Long-term independent market presence of two similar marks reduces the likelihood-of-confusion assessment. Here, 30 years of parallel use was decisive.

Disclaimer: For informational purposes only. Contact Elçi Patent for professional trademark advice.