THE TRADEMARK IN THE MARKET IS NEEDED NOT THE ONE IN THE CABIN

“The trademark in the market is needed not the one in the cabin.” That is exactly what Mr. Nihat Ergün, Minister of Science and Industry says. A complaint for not becoming trademark yet.

When Turkish Patent Institute’s data are examined, it is seen that there is drastic increase in number of trademark applications.  However, we are considerably mean in terms of putting the registered trademarks in market for use. We like keeping registration documents of the registered trademarks in “important assets” folder. With the words of Mr. Minister “we have the mentality of putting the trademark in cabin and lock it there in respect to trademark consciousness.” On the other hand, we have to take fast and big steps in trademark matter and achieve brandization. Ministry of Science, Industry and Technology targets to create at least 10 trademarks well known, recognized globally by 2023. When number of applications is considered, the increasing rate is pleasing but we must put our brands in the market, promote and use them. However, investment in our trademarks can only provide creating worldwide trademarks.

In comparison with last year, the number of trademark, Patent and Design applications is as follows :

	Increase Rate
Trademark:	%38
Patent	%26
Design	%20

Number of Trademark and Patents is as follows:

	Local	Foreign	Total
Trademark:	103 thousand  747	13 thousand  976	117 thousand
Patent	7 thousand  262	6 thousand  223	13 thousand  485

Turkey has broken a record in trademark application. It ranks in number one in Europe with about 120 thousand trademark applications. In 2011 103 thousand 747 local and 13 thousand 976 foreign in total 117 thousand trademark applications were made. France is in rank two after Turkey with 91 thousand 214 applications.

Last year 7 thousand 262 local and 6 thousand 223 foreign in total 13 thousand 485 patent and utility model applications were made at Turkish Patent Institute.

The increase rate of local patent applications of Turkey in 2011 is 26 percent.

Local patent and utility model application increase in first six month of this year have increased by 14 per cent when compared to the same period of last year and the number of application has increased from 3 thousand 698 to 4 thousand 202. Foreign patent and utility model application increase  has been 19 per cent when compared to the same period of last year and the number of applications has increased from 2 thousand 918 to 3 thousand 470.

As long as we could not achieve brandization in reality, broken record and achieved rank one will not be triggering development, which is considerably clear.

Kenzo SA, owner of the fashion brand KENZO, failed to successfully oppose the KENZO ESTATE application.

A well-known fashion brand will not necessarily be able to be monopolised, notwithstanding its fame and repute in the fashion world, and notwithstanding the phenomenon of co-marketing of fashion brands in new categories.

Kenzo Tsujimoto, of Japan, successfully defended an opposition to his KENZO ESTATE trade mark, covering wine, alcoholic fruit beverages and western liquors.

Kenzo SA, owner of the fashion brand KENZO, failed to successfully oppose the KENZO ESTATE application. In an attempt to make out its reputation in the trade mark ‘KENZO’, Kenzo SA put forward evidence that all ‘live’ marks on the Register for KENZO were in its name. It also put forward evidence of co-marketing of fashion brands and beverages.

However, Kenzo Tsujimoto showed that it is not uncommon for well-known fashion brands to be owned by third parties in relation to beverages, and tendered evidence of various third party trading names (registered and in use) for  the term ‘KENZO’.

Hearings Officer Thompson concluded that the term KENZO was not in any way exclusive to the Opponent. The degree and extent of the reputation of Kenzo SA’s ‘KENZO’ trade marks was not sufficiently substantial, on its own, to cause confusion.   He stated ” while it might be that the use of some particularly well-known fashion brands in relation to wines by persons other than the brand owners might well deceive or cause confusion, I am not persuaded by the evidence that such is likely to be the case here” : Kenzo SA v Kenzo Tsujimoto [2012] ATMO 58 (22 June 2012).

Roanne De Menezes