90 “Identity or Similarity of Goods of Services” Under The Industrial Property Code No. 6769 from those within the scope of a previously registered or an appliedfor trademark has not been prohibited, with the exception of wellknown trademarks. Therefore, in the assessment made regarding the existence of a likelihood of confusion under Article 6/1 of the IPC, it is essential to determine primarily whether the goods/services are similar. However, the presence of similarity of goods/services does not necessarily imply the presence of a likelihood of confusion in all cases.14 There are different views in doctrine regarding how the likelihood of confusion in the examination of similarity of goods and services will be addressed. According to one perspective, the likelihood of confusion should be analyzed in two stages.15 First, the determination of the similarity of goods/services should be made, and then the criteria of similarity between the signs and their distinctive character should be examined. Because if there is no similarity of goods/services, the likelihood of confusion will also be eliminated.16 According to authors with opposing views, it has been argued that the likelihood of confusion should be evaluated in a single stage, taking all elements into account collectively.17 According to Paslı, who supports this view, similarity of the signs and distinctive character of the trademarks should be considered to determine the likelihood of confusion. In this context, (as indirectly indicated in the Sabel-Puma decision18 by the European Court of Justice), the higher the distinctive character of a trademark is in terms of its signification, the broader the scope of evaluation should be for identifying similar goods and services within the scope of protection of the trademark.19 Similarly, the author states that as the degree of similarity between the elements constituting the trademarks increases, the likelihood of similarity between the products will also 14 Paslı, p. 6. 15 Uğur Çolak, Türk Marka Hukuku (Turkish Trademark Law), 4th Edition, Istanbul 2018, p. 200; Uzunallı, p. 677. 16 Uzunallı, p. 677. 17 Hanife Dirikkan, Tanınmış Markanın Korunması (Protection of Well-Known Trademarks), Ankara 2003, p. 191; Canan Küçükali, Marka Hukukunda Karıştırma Tehlikesi (Likelihood of Confusion in Trademark Law), Ankara 2009, p. 107. 18 CJEU, D. 11.11.1997, C-251/95, Sabel v. Puma, Rudolf Dassler Sport (ipcuria.eu, Last accessed: 06.06.2021). 19 Paslı, p. 61.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTQ3OTE1