87 Union of Turkish Bar Associations Review 2023 Dilara Naz GÜLÜM include discussions on the supplementary methods utilized by industrial property registration offices to determine the similarity of goods/services, along with the criteria set forth by judicial decisions and legal doctrine in this context. I. IDENTITY/SIMILARITY OF GOODS/SERVICES UNDER THE TURKISH LAW In accordance with Article 4 of IPC No. 6769, a trademark ensures the distinction of goods or services of one enterprise from those of another enterprise. This matter is closely related to the origin indicating function of the trademark. The origin indicating function of a trademark is legally protected as its fundamental role. Through this function, even if the consumer is not familiar with the enterprise, the relevant public relies on the enterprise and associates the product with it. Therefore, trademarks are assigned the duty to prevent the public from being misled about the origin of the product offered.8 In the Copad/ Dior case, the Court of Justice of the European Union emphasized this point in its ruling, stating, “…it must be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law, the essential function of a trade mark is to guarantee the identity of the origin of the marked goods or services to the consumer or end user by enabling him, without any possibility of confusion, to distinguish those goods or services from others which have another origin.”9 The issue of similarity of goods/services within the scope of Article 6/1 of the IPC, which constitutes the subject of our study, is closely related to the likelihood of confusion by the relevant public to which the product is addressed. In this context, when the registration of a trademark for identical/similar goods/services that have previously been applied for or registered in the name of another party is prevented, it also serves the purpose of fulfilling the origin indicating function. 8 Sevilay Uzunallı, “Marka Hukukunda Malların ve/veya Hizmetlerin Benzerliğinin Tespiti Sorunu (Problem of Determining Similarity of Goods and/or Services in Trademark Law)”, Prof. Dr. Hamdi Yasaman’a Armağan, Istanbul, 2017, p. 680. 9 Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), D. 29.09.1998, C-39/97, Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v. Metro-Goldwyn Mayer Inc., para. 28 (curia.europa.eu, Last accessed: 06.06.2021).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTQ3OTE1