Uğur Aktekin joined the firm in 1999 and has been a partner since 2003. He is co-chair of the firm’s intellectual property practice and the technology, media and telecom industry practice.Uğur’s Intellectual Property practice focuses on trademarks, designs and copyrights.He advises on implementing IP protection and enforcement strategies and portfolio management, representing clients before the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office, as well as cancellation, infringement and other court actions and domain name ADR proceedings, filing for interlocutory and precautionary injunctions, negotiating and drafting co-existence, settlement and licensing agreements.Uğur has been involved in numerous anti-piracy campaigns, civil litigation, criminal raids and litigation involving software copyrights, cinematographic and musical copyrights, cartoon character copyrights, architectural copyrights, databases and television film formats.His TMT practice covers media, advertising, consumer, internet, technology licensing, information technologies, computer software, computer games, data protection, data privacy and security.He advises on all aspects of advertising and media laws, including clearance of advertisements, contracts, promotions and sweepstakes to various local and multinational companies primarily on food and beverages, technology, media, telecom and entertainment sectors.Uğur also advises on data protection legislation, website privacy policies and terms of use under Turkish law. Practice Areas &amp; Work DepartmentIntellectual PropertyTrademarks and DesignsCopyrightsIP ProsecutionTechnology, Media and Telecom LanguagesEnglishTurkish MembershipsInternational Federation of Intellectual Property Attorneys of Turkey (FICPI Turkey), Founder and Former PresidentInternational Bar Association (IBA)Association Internationale pour la Protection de la Propriété Intellectuelle (AIPPI)International Federation of Intellectual Property Attorneys (FICPI)International Trademark Association (INTA), Data Protection CommitteeInternational Technology Law Association (ITECHLAW)Global Advertising Lawyers Alliance (GALA)Patent and Trademark Attorneys’ Association of Turkey (PEM)

Gün + Partners was founded in 1986 and is one of the largest law firms in Turkey with 13 partners and over 70 lawyers. The firm is based in Istanbul and provides transactional, advisory, and dispute management services to local and international companies throughout Turkey and assists clients worldwide through its established network of correspondents and contacts.The firm's core areas of expertise are corporate and commercial, dispute management, and intellectual property. It represents clients in numerous industry sectors with a particular focus on life sciences, insurance and reinsurance, energy, construction and real estate, logistics, technology, media and telecoms, automotive, FMCG, chemicals and the defence industries.

Gün + Partners

Partner

&lt;div id="article-content" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial; font-size: 14px;">&lt;ul style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; list-style-type: square; font-size: 14px;">&lt;li style="box-sizing: border-box; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; margin-left: 20px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">Delphi Technologies opposed the registration of DEPLHI in Classes 1, 3 and 4 based on its earlier mark DELPHI&lt;/span>&lt;/li>&lt;li style="box-sizing: border-box; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; margin-left: 20px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">The board found that the goods covered by the application were similar and related to the goods/services covered by the earlier mark, as they were all used in the auto spare parts sector&lt;/span>&lt;/li>&lt;li style="box-sizing: border-box; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; margin-left: 20px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">‘Delphi’ has no meaning in Turkish and it was unlikely that this word would have been chosen as a trademark as a coincidence&lt;/span>&lt;/li>&lt;/ul>&lt;p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">In a recent decision, the Re-examination and Evaluation Board (‘the board’) of the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has found that the trademarks DEPLHI and DELPHI were similar and covered similar goods and services, and that the application for DEPLHI had been filed in bad faith.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">&lt;br>&lt;/strong>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">Background&lt;/strong>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">On 27 August 2021 a Turkish individual filed an application for the registration of the word mark DEPLHI in Classes 1, 3 and 4.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">Following the publication of the application in the&nbsp;&lt;em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Official Trademarks Bulletin&lt;/em>, the owner of the DELPHI trademarks, Delphi Technologies IP Limited, opposed the application in its entirety on the grounds of likelihood of confusion and bad faith.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">In its decision dated 17 May 2022 the Trademarks Department of the PTO rejected the opposition, concluding that there was no likelihood of confusion, including a likelihood of association, between the trademarks due to a lack of similarity between the goods and services covered by the trademarks, despite the similarity of the signs.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">The opponent appealed, requesting the re-examination of the opposition by the board.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">&lt;br>&lt;/strong>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">Appeal Decision&lt;/strong>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">On 13 October 2022 the board accepted the appeal in line with the legal grounds relied upon in the opposition.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">The board first conducted an examination of the likelihood of confusion ground and agreed with the Trademarks Department that there were visual and aural similarities between the opposed mark DEPLHI and the opponent’s DELPHI mark. Further, the board determined that the goods “chemicals used in industry, science, photography, agriculture, horticulture and forestry” in Class 1 and “industrial oils, greases, cutting fluids, dust absorbing, wetting and binding compositions; liquid and gas fuels: petrol, diesel oil, liquified petroleum gas, natural gas, fuel oil and their non-chemical additives”in Class 4 were similar and related to the goods and services covered by the opponent’s registration in Classes 7, 9, 12, 35, 37 and 42, as they were all used in the automotive spare parts sector. Considering that the goods covered by the trademarks were similar, the board concluded that there was a likelihood of confusion between the marks under Article 6/1 of the IP Code (No 6769) as regards the above-mentioned goods.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">The board then examined the opponent’s bad-faith claim. It determined that ‘Delphi’ has no meaning in Turkish and that it was unlikely that this word would have been chosen as a trademark coincidentally. This word is registered as a trademark abroad and in Turkey in the name of the opponent; the DELPHI trademark is used in Turkey by the opponent in the automotive spare parts sector and it is known in the relevant sector to a reasonable degree. Taking into account that the goods covered by the application were similar and related to the goods covered by the opponent’s trademarks, the board concluded that the subject application had not been filed in good faith.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">&lt;br>&lt;/strong>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">Comment&lt;/strong>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">The board’s decision is valuable in that it took all factors into account in assessing bad faith, namely:&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;ul style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; list-style-type: square; font-size: 14px;">&lt;li style="box-sizing: border-box; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; margin-left: 20px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">the similarity of the trademarks;&lt;/span>&lt;/li>&lt;li style="box-sizing: border-box; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; margin-left: 20px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">the similarity of the goods;&lt;/span>&lt;/li>&lt;li style="box-sizing: border-box; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; margin-left: 20px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">the specifics of the business sector at issue;&lt;/span>&lt;/li>&lt;li style="box-sizing: border-box; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; margin-left: 20px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">the distinctive characteristics of the opponent’s trademark; and&lt;/span>&lt;/li>&lt;li style="box-sizing: border-box; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; margin-left: 20px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">its reputation within the sector.&lt;/span>&lt;/li>&lt;/ul>&lt;p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">The scope of the examination and the detailed reasoning provided in the decision clearly demonstrate the quality of the assessment made by the board.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; text-align: justify; line-height: 2; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">Further, the decision shows the importance of introducing all relevant material facts and conditions specific to the case, as they may support each other in reaching a bad-faith decision in a given case.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;hr style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;/div>&lt;p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial; line-height: 2; font-size: 14px;">&lt;em style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(14, 13, 13);">First published by WTR in 26.01.2023.&lt;/em>&lt;/p>

In a recent decision, the Re-examination and Evaluation Board (‘the board’) of the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has found that the trademarks DEPLHI and DELPHI were similar and covered similar goods and services, and that the application for DEPLHI had been filed in bad faith.

DELPHI v DEPLHI: PTO’s Decision Sheds Light on Interpretation of Bad Faith

The Internet has gone beyond of its fundamental functions of providing access to information and distributing the same and become a tool for interconnecting the entire world and an irreplaceable method of meeting the most basic human needs due to the transformation it has been going through the recent years. Accordingly, websites have turned into platforms with which we make contacts multiple times every day in order to carry out our daily activities. In Turkey, being one of the countries with greatest percentage of internet penetration, there is no set of rules specifically applicable to websites, which leaves the question of how exactly websites are protected under Turkish law unanswered.

Lawyers Uğur Aktekin

Uğur Aktekin

DELPHI v DEPLHI: PTO’s Decision Sheds Light on Interpretation of Bad Faith

Protection of Websites Under Turkish Law