109 Union of Turkish Bar Associations Review 2023 Dilara Naz GÜLÜM competition” with each other.100 As an illustration, wall paint and wallpaper can be deemed substitutable and similar due to their shared purpose of wall decoration through coverage. Likewise, movie rental services and the cinematography offer comparable avenues of entertainment, rendering them substitutable and consequently engendering competition between the two.101 In its verdict dated January 14, 2015, the Court of Cassation ruled that the defendant company’s application, encompassing “production services for films, television, and radio programs” in Class 41, was potentially confusing with the plaintiff’s trademarks due to the similarity in the relevant public, production and distribution channels, as well as sales points of the goods within the scope of the plaintiff’s trademarks. Furthermore, it was stated that the likelihood of confusion, including the possibility of creating an association, existed because the signs were similar and could be substituted for one another.102 Due to the complementary nature of goods/services that have different functions and usage patterns and are not in competition with each other, they can be considered as similar. For instance, due to the complementary nature of a suit and shoes designed for men, these goods could potentially share similar customer bases and sales channels.103 In its decision104 dated November 2, 2010, the Court of Cassation ruled that items such as bags, suitcases, wallets, and umbrellas in Class 18, which are complementary auxiliary accessories to the “clothing” covered by the plaintiff’s registered trademark in Classes 24 and 25, were considered as similar due to their complementary nature and being sold together with clothing in stores. h. Evaluation of Similarity within Subgroup 35.05 Under the Communiqué on Classification published by TURKPATENT, sub-group 35.05 under Class 35 is as follows: 100 Paslı, p. 87. 101 EUIPO, Guidelines for Examination of European Union Trademarks, Part C, Section 2, Chapter 2, para. 3.2.5. 102 Court of Cassation 11th Civil Chamber, D. 14.01.2015, Case No. 2014/14409, Judgment No. 2015/269 (Kazancı Case Law Database, Last accessed: 06.06.2021). 103 Paslı, p. 90. 104 Court of Cassation 11th Civil Chamber, D. 02.11.2010, Case No. 2009/825, Judgment No. 2010/11154 (Lexpera, Last accessed: 06.06.2021).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTQ3OTE1