Introduction

With the entry into force of the Industrial Property Code No. 6769, the proof of use mechanism has become a central feature of Turkish trademark law, particularly in opposition and cancellation or invalidation proceedings. Its primary function is to protect trademarks that are genuinely active in commercial life, while eliminating unused or dormant marks from the trademark register.

Nevertheless, a rigid or mechanical application of proof of use requirements may lead to disproportionate outcomes, particularly in sectors governed by unique commercial dynamics. The luxury goods sector is a notable example.

Luxury brands typically operate with high price points, limited sales volumes, and selective distribution networks. When proof of use is assessed predominantly through quantitative metrics, such as the number of invoices or sales figures, luxury trademarks may face an unjustified risk of loss of protection despite genuine market presence.

A recent decision of the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (TURKPATENT) concerning a Class 14 (watches) trademark application provides valuable insight into how proof of use evidence relating to luxury trademarks should be assessed. This article analyses that decision in light of TURKPATENT’s Proof of Use Guideline and established practice.

Legal Framework of Proof of Use

Under Article 19 of the Industrial Property Code, in oppositions based on Article 6/1, the applicant of the contested trademark may request the opponent to prove genuine use of its earlier trademark in Turkey within the five years preceding the filing date of the opposed application.

According to TURKPATENT’s Proof of Use Guideline, genuine use requires use of the trademark in commercial life with the aim of creating or maintaining market share. Such use must not be merely symbolic or carried out solely to preserve trademark rights.

The Guideline lists examples of acceptable evidence—such as invoices, catalogues, advertisements, packaging, and business records—but expressly states that this list is not exhaustive. Importantly, proof of use must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the economic reality of the relevant sector.

Luxury Brands and the Limits of Quantitative Assessment

Luxury consumer brands are generally characterized by:

• high price levels,
• inherently low sales volumes,
• limited and selective distribution channels, and
• value creation based on exclusivity, prestige, and brand perception rather than mass consumption.

Expectations such as frequent transactions, extensive dealer networks, mass-media advertising campaigns, or discount-driven sales strategies are incompatible with the commercial logic of luxury goods.

Accordingly, in the luxury segment, proof of use should be assessed primarily through qualitative indicators of market presence and commercial intent, rather than purely quantitative criteria. TURKPATENT’s decision in the case at hand illustrates how this principle has been applied in practice.

Evidence Submitted in the Case

In the opposition proceedings, the applicant requested proof of genuine use of the opponent’s trademark, which is known as a luxury watch brand, in Turkey over the relevant five-year period (14 March 2019 to 14 March 2024). Notably, part of this period coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic.

The opponent submitted a combination of documentary evidence, including invoices, catalogues, online materials, and information regarding its distribution network and brand communication activities.

Invoices

The file contained a limited number of invoices from 2021–2022. Although few in number, these invoices demonstrated sales of high-value products, with transaction amounts reaching approximately TRY 100,000.

While invoices are regarded as primary evidence in TURKPATENT practice, the Office acknowledged that, in the luxury sector, even a small number of transactions may reflect substantial economic activity. Accordingly, the invoices were not dismissed as token use but assessed in line with the nature of luxury goods.

Catalogues and Online Presence

 The opponent also submitted catalogues covering the years 2019–2024, as well as webpages dedicated to the branded products. Under Office practice, promotional materials may serve as supporting evidence provided they demonstrate consistent and continuous use. In this case, the multi-year catalogue submissions supported the conclusion that the trademark owner maintained a sustained commercial intention to use the mark.

Distribution Network

The opponent further demonstrated the existence of authorized sales points in Turkey. Although limited in number, this selective distribution model was found to be consistent with the commercial strategy of luxury brands. Turkish courts have previously recognized that restricted retail networks are characteristic of luxury goods and do not, in themselves, indicate symbolic use.

Brand Communication and Media Visibility

Additional evidence included international collaborations, brand ambassadors, media coverage, and consumer or collector reviews. While also relevant to claims of reputation, this material reinforced the conclusion that the trademark was actively present in its relevant market segment.

TURKPATENT’s Assessment

TURKPATENT concluded that genuine use of the opponent’s trademark had been established in relation to “watches.”

The decision emphasized that proof of use must be assessed without disregarding the luxury nature of the goods, their high price level, and the resulting low sales volume. This approach is fully consistent with the Proof of Use Guideline’s requirement to consider the specific characteristics of each case.

The Office reaffirmed that factors such as the nature of the goods, the relevant consumer group, pricing strategy, and distribution model must all be taken into account. In line with its established practice, TURKPATENT accepted that a limited number of sales may suffice to establish genuine use where the goods are of a high-end or specialized nature.

The assumption that low sales volume necessarily equates to non-use was therefore expressly rejected.

Proof of Use versus Proof of Reputation

Although genuine use was accepted, TURKPATENT rejected the opponent’s claims of notoriety under the Paris Convention and Article 6/5 of the Industrial Property Code.

This distinction highlights a key legal principle: genuine use and well-known status are separate legal concepts. The threshold for establishing notoriety is significantly higher and requires more extensive evidence, such as widespread public recognition, market share data, and demonstrable impact on the general public.

Accordingly, a trademark may be genuinely used in commercial life without qualifying as a well-known mark under Turkish law.

Conclusion

The decision confirms several important principles relevant to luxury consumer trademarks:

• Proof of use for luxury brands cannot be assessed using the same criteria as for mass-market goods.
• Limited but high-value sales may constitute genuine use.
• Evidence must be evaluated holistically rather than in isolation.
• Inversely proportional to product price, a smaller number of transactions—supported by additional evidence of market presence—may be sufficient.
• Catalogues, store information, and brand communication materials can significantly strengthen proof of use when combined with even a limited number of invoices.
• Proof of use and proof of reputation must be clearly distinguished.

From this perspective, the decision provides practical guidance for trademark owners and practitioners on structuring proof of use evidence in the luxury segment and reinforces the importance of a sector-sensitive assessment.