113 Union of Turkish Bar Associations Review 2023 Dilara Naz GÜLÜM confusion among the public, even if they are in different classes, can be deemed as “similar” in terms of the goods/services they cover. The court pointed out that the defendant did not restrict the trademark to the presentation of specific goods within the relevant sub-group, thus the application would also cover the bringing together of goods specified under the plaintiff’s registered trademarks. Therefore, the Court of Cassation concluded that there is a possibility of confusion.119 Finally, it is necessary to address how the similarity between services bringing together identical/similar goods should be assessed. In the 2021 Guideline, it is stated that the retailing service of identical goods will be considered as identical services, whereas the assessment of similarity between retailing services of non-identical goods will take into consideration factors such as the degree of similarity between the assembled goods, whether these goods are frequently offered for sale together in the industry, and the relevant public, among other criteria.120 In this context, the service of “bringing together clothes” and the service of “bringing together bags” are considered as similar services, as the relevant goods are frequently offered for sale together and address the same relevant public.121 However, when comparing services for bringing together different goods, the assessment will need to be made on a case-by-case basis.122 CONCLUSION The determination of similarity of goods/services is not only significant in the examination conducted by TURKPATENT, but also holds great importance in terms of the fundamental aspects of trademark law, namely invalidity and infringement cases. Likewise, as per the provisions of Article 25 of the IPC, the grounds for declaring 119 However, in some decisions rendered by the Court of Cassation, it is emphasized that the registered trademark for retail services can only establish rights if the services are actually used (or there is a serious effort towards such usage) within the sector where the goods subject to the services are present. See. Court of Cassation 11th Civil Chamber, D. 30.03.2016, Case No. 2015/8504, Judgment No. 2016/3492; Court of Cassation 11th Civil Chamber, D. 27.02.2017, Case No. 2015/12715, Judgment No. 2017/1112 (Kazancı Case Law Database, Last accessed: 06.06.2021). 120 2021 Guideline, p. 447. 121 2021 Guideline, p. 447. 122 2021 Guideline, p. 448.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTQ3OTE1