Blue Washing in Design Applications: Proper Use of Masking Techniques Before the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (TPTO)

This article focuses on the use of blue washing in Turkish design filings, with particular emphasis on how the technique is assessed by the TPTO, how it fits within the framework of Industrial Property Code No. 6769, and how it aligns with the CP-6 Harmonisation of Visual Representations of Designs. It also provides practical guidance for applicants on avoiding common pitfalls in the use of masking techniques.

In design applications, the way visual elements are represented plays a critical role in determining the scope of protection. One of the techniques increasingly used to distinguish protected and unprotected parts of a design is the so-called “blue washing”. While effective when applied correctly, improper use may lead to misunderstandings or even objections from the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (TPTO).

Below is a practical overview of how the technique works, how it is evaluated under Turkish practice, and how it aligns with the CP-6 Harmonisation standards.

What Is the Blue Washing Technique?

Blue washing refers to applying a blue (or similarly contrasting) colour to certain parts of a design in order to indicate that those parts are not claimed for protection.

The aim is straightforward:

- protected parts → shown in normal line drawings

- unprotected parts → shown with a contrasting colour, typically blue

When used correctly, the technique clarifies the scope of protection.

When used incorrectly, however, the TPTO may interpret the coloured areas as part of the actual design, which can result in objections or requests for correction.

Protected vs. Unprotected Areas Under Turkish Law

According to Industrial Property Code No. 6769 and its regulations:

Protected areas

Elements for which protection is claimed. These are normally shown without masking, using solid lines.

Unprotected areas

Parts excluded from protection. Applicants must clearly indicate these using TPTO-accepted techniques such as:

- colour masking (including blue washing)

- grey shading

- cross-hatching

- dotted or broken lines

- background-matching masking

Failure to clearly distinguish these areas may trigger an objection, as the TPTO requires immediate visual clarity.

These national rules are also consistent with broader European harmonisation efforts.

Alignment with CP-6 Harmonisation Standards

The CP-6 Harmonisation of Visual Representations of Designs establishes common principles among EU IP offices and ensures consistent interpretation of visual disclaimers, including contrasting-colour masking.

It emphasises that unprotected parts must be made unmistakably clear through consistent visual methods.

Blue washing, when correctly executed, aligns with CP-6 principles. The TPTO has also accepted the technique in several cases where it was properly applied.

Case Example: Incorrect vs. Correct Application

Incorrect Application

In one application, only the interior of a toilet bowl was coloured blue, while the rest of the design—particularly the background—was left unmasked.

(Example 1 – Incorrect Blue Washing Application)

The TPTO considered this representation problematic because:

1. the blue areas appeared to form part of the design,

2. the distinction between protected and excluded areas was unclear,

3. the masking did not blend with the background, disrupting the visual logic.

As a result, the TPTO did not recognise this as valid blue washing.

Correct Application

In another application involving a similar design, the TPTO reached the opposite conclusion. Here, the blue masking was applied in a way that visually matched the background, leaving no ambiguity regarding the unprotected areas.

(Example 2 – Correct Blue Washing Application)

This successful example aligns with both TPTO practice and CP-6’s Joint Declaration, which also provides model illustrations of properly applied contrasting-colour masking.

Here, the unprotected areas are clearly identifiable, and the design application was accepted by the TPTO.

While the term “blue washing” is not explicitly defined in the Industrial Property Code No. 6769 or its Regulation, the practice of using contrasting colour masking to indicate non-protected areas has been accepted by the TPTO in specific cases. Moreover, this practice aligns with visual representation standards such as the CP-6 Harmonisation of Visual Expressions of Design – Joint Declaration and has been applied in earlier design files where the TPTO accepted the technique when executed correctly.

(Example 3 – CP-6 Joint Declaration Illustration)

Best Practices for Applicants Before the TPTO

To avoid unnecessary office actions and ensure the design is represented as intended:

- Ensure clarity: unprotected areas must be visually and immediately distinguishable.

- Use blue washing consistently: the masking should integrate smoothly with the background.

- Follow TPTO-approved representation standards: including contrast colouring, shading or broken lines.

- Review previous TPTO decisions: particularly those where blue washing was accepted or rejected.

- Consult CP-6 guidelines: to ensure alignment with harmonised visual standards.

Conclusion

Blue washing is a useful technique for indicating unprotected areas in design applications. However, its effectiveness depends entirely on correct execution. When applied in accordance with TPTO practice and CP-6 standards, it helps applicants avoid objections and define the scope of protection with precision.

Ultimately, blue washing is not merely a visual preference but a legal tool that directly affects the scope and enforceability of design protection.

Key Takeaways

- Blue washing is a form of contrasting-colour masking used to visually exclude certain features from design protection.

- If applied incorrectly, blue washing may be interpreted by the TPTO as part of the claimed design, leading to objections or requests for correction.

- Turkish practice on visual disclaimers is broadly consistent with the CP-6 Harmonisation of Visual Representations of Designs.

- Clear, consistent masking and alignment with CP-6 guidance help applicants define the scope of protection precisely and avoid unnecessary office actions.