94 “Identity or Similarity of Goods of Services” Under The Industrial Property Code No. 6769 taken into consideration by the court, it does not possess a binding authority.31 Answering the first question requires explaining the degree of similarity between goods/services within the scope of positive law regulations and establishing its connection with the Nice classification. B. The Degree of Similarity Between Goods/Services In the IPC, a registered trademark is protected not only for the goods/services it covers, but also for similar goods/services. The use of an identical or similar sign, even for similar goods/services, constitutes a ground for refusal of registration, invalidity, and infringement.32 In this regard, it would be beneficial to provide clarification in the relevant articles of the IPC regarding the terminology “identical/same type/similar goods or services.” 1. The Concept of Identical Goods/Services According to Article 5/1-ç of the IPC, the registration of a trademark that contains an identical or indistinguishably similar sign to a previously registered or an applied-for trademark for identical/ same type goods or services must be refused ex officio. Under Article 6/1 of the IPC, the request for registration of an identical/similar trademark with an earlier trademark for identical/similar goods or services will be refused upon opposition if there is a likelihood of confusion. Based on these provisions, the registration of the identical trademark for identical/similar goods or services is envisaged as both an absolute and a relative ground for refusal.33 In the case of identical goods/services, there will be no ambiguity, and it will be implied that the goods or services listed in the registration certificate are identical. However, determining what constitutes the “same type” of goods or services is not straightforward, as neither 31 Çolak, p. 211. 32 Paslı, p. 23. 33 Under the Decree-Law No. 556, the mentioned ground for refusal was regulated both in Article 7 concerning absolute grounds for refusal and in the subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 8 concerning relative grounds for refusal. It has been argued that considering the same reason as both an absolute and a relative ground for refusal is not accurate. See. Arkan, p. 75.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTQ3OTE1