1.1. Historical Process and the Formation of the Legal Ground

With the IPC entering into force on January 10, 2017, the authority to cancel trademarks was intended to be transferred to TÜRKPATENT. However, Article 192/1-a of the Code postponed the enforcement of this provision for seven years. This period expired on January 10, 2024, and the authority legally passed to the Office. Nevertheless, the lack of ready regulations regarding how the implementation would be carried out created a period of uncertainty—a "legal limbo"—throughout 2024. This uncertainty ended with the "Regulation Amending the Regulation on the Implementation of the Industrial Property Code," published in the Official Gazette dated March 15, 2025, numbered 32842.

This regulatory change is not merely a transfer of authority; it is a reform introducing new standards regarding the law of evidence and procedural economy. The evaluation of cancellation requests is now subject to administrative review procedures rather than the strict trial procedures of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK).

1.2. Analysis of the Cancellation Procedure Under the New Regulation

Articles 30/A and 30/B, introduced by the Regulation of March 15, 2025, form the backbone of the process. These articles detail the formal requirements of the cancellation request, the obligations of the parties, and the decision-making mechanism.

1.2.1. The "One Request – One Trademark" Principle and Procedural Economy

The most radical procedural rule introduced by the Regulation is that each cancellation request can only be directed at a single registered trademark. During the court phase, plaintiffs could typically request the cancellation (invalidation) of multiple trademarks belonging to a defendant with a single petition. However, in the administrative process, the Office has introduced this restriction to simplify file examination and to evaluate the usage status of each trademark independently.

The reflections of this regulation on legal practice are as follows:

• Cost Increase: A client wishing to cancel 10 different trademarks of a competitor on the grounds of non-use must now pay 10 separate administrative application fees instead of a single court fee.

• Strategic Defense: This creates an advantage for trademark owners; the appetite of competitors to launch an "omnibus attack" is curbed by financial barriers.

• Speed of Examination: The fact that each file is independent will prevent the confusion of evidence, ensuring decisions are issued more rapidly.

1.2.2. Burden of Proof and Standards of Evidence

According to the Regulation, the cancellation request is notified to the trademark owner registered in the registry or their legal successors. In requests based on claims of "non-use," the burden of proof rests with the trademark owner, contrary to the general legal principle of "the burden of proof rests with the claimant." The trademark owner is obliged to prove that the trademark is being used seriously in Turkey for the goods or services for which cancellation is requested, or that there are justifiable reasons for non-use (force majeure, import bans, etc.).

In the Office's administrative review, direct examination of documents such as invoices, catalogs, and customs declarations, along with expert opinions, will be essential, replacing the expert witness examinations used in courts. This increases the importance of submitted evidence being classified, dated, and directly associable with the trademark.

1.3. The 2025 Fee Schedule and the "Escrow Account" Model

The "Communiqué Regarding the Fee Schedule to be Applied in 2025 (BİK/TÜRKPATENT: 2025/2)," published by TÜRKPATENT, established a financial mechanism specific to the administrative cancellation process that is rarely seen in Turkish law. An "Escrow Account" system has been developed to prevent cancellation applications from being used in bad faith or to harass competitors.

The trademark cancellation request fee is divided into two components collected at once:

1. Trademark Cancellation Fee: The non-refundable transaction fee collected for the Office's examination service.

2. Trademark Cancellation Request Escrow Amount: A security deposit that changes direction based on the outcome of the request.

The table below summarizes the fate of this escrow amount based on various scenarios:

Result of Cancellation Request. Fate of Escrow Amount Legal Interpretation and Economic Impact

Full Acceptance(The entire trademark is cancelled). Refunded to the Requesting Party. Since the rightfulness of the requesting party is confirmed, their cost is reduced.

Full Rejection(Cancellation of the trademark is refused) Paid to the Trademark Owner. Acts as a form of "compensation" or "attorney fee" for the legal defense costs incurred by the trademark owner.

Partial Acceptance / Partial Rejection. Recorded as revenue to the Office. No payment is made to the parties. In cases where both parties are partially right/wrong, the money passes to the public treasury.

In light of this data, we, as attorneys and legal consultants, must perform risk analysis much more precisely when advising clients on cancellation applications. The fact that the escrow amount will be forfeited in cases where the risk of "partial acceptance" is high (e.g., a trademark used in 3 out of 5 classes but not in 2) must not be ignored.