112 “Identity or Similarity of Goods of Services” Under The Industrial Property Code No. 6769 within a narrow range of sales of goods, the impression that the goods subject to sale and the provision of services originate from the same enterprise can arise in the relevant public. Consequently, the similarity between the goods offered for sale and the services provided can be established.115 In this context, it is necessary to address the situation of trademarks that were not limited to the presentation of a specific product to customers under the scope of “Services for bringing together various goods to enable customers to conveniently view and purchase them” before the 2011 amendment. In this case, with regards to the possibility of confusion, it can be concluded that the application for registration in Class 35 may cover all goods.116 In a verdict dated May 6, 2013,117 the Court of Cassation stated that the plaintiff’s goods under the “KAYRA” trademark in Class 33 would be confused with the defendant’s “KYRA” trademark for retail services. This is because the defendant did not limit the scope of registration to specific products when making the disputed application for retail services in Class 35.07 (currently 35.05), excluding retail services related to goods in Class 33. Therefore, the Court of Cassation pointed out that the similarity and likelihood of confusion between the mentioned goods and Class 35.07 (retail) services are inevitable. In the case that is the subject of the Court of Cassation’s verdict dated April 19, 2010,118 the defendant aimed to register the term “AMBER” under the sub-group of “Services for bringing together various goods to enable customers to conveniently view and purchase them.” On behalf of the plaintiff, trademark registrations with the wording “AMBER” have previously been obtained in classes 3, 5, 8, 26, and 29. Within the scope of the case, the Court of Cassation has established that trademarks/service marks that are likely to cause 115 Uzunallı, p. 694. See also. Beşir Fatih Doğan, “Perakende Satış Hizmeti (35.08) İçin Marka Tescilinde Ortaya Çıkan Sorunlar ve Çözüm Önerileri [Challenges Arising in Trademark Registration for Retail Sales Service (Class 35.08) and Proposed Solutions]”, IPC Journal, 2009, Vol. 9, I. 1, p. 24; Paslı, p. 462, 463. 116 Çolak, p. 223. 117 Court of Cassation 11th Civil Chamber, D. 06.05.2013, Case No. 2012/10264, Judgment No. 2013/9052 (Kazancı Case Law Database, Last accessed: 06.06.2021). 118 Court of Cassation 11th Civil Chamber, D. 19.04.2010, Case No. 2010/2036, Judgment No. 2010/4235 (Kazancı Case Law Database, Last accessed: 06.06.2021).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTQ3OTE1