Authors: Intellectual Property Law Department, Att. Azat Ekici, Att. Mustafa Şahin

INTRODUCTION

Invalidity is a fundamental mechanism of termination both in the law of intellectual creations and in the field of industrial property rights; however, its institutional architecture differs between the two fields. Law No. 5846 on Intellectual and Artistic Works (“LIAW”) ties the author’s right to the moment of creation. Therefore, under LIAW, “registration of a work” is not constitutive, and there is no technical institution of “invalidity of the author’s right.” In contrast, Law No. 6769 on Industrial Property (“IP Code”) typifies in detail both the grounds for invalidity and the effects of the decision for trademarks, designs, patents, utility models, and geographical indications. The following sections outline the current invalidity regime by separately addressing these two axes.

Work–Invalidity Distinction: Nature of Protection and Registration under LIAW

The author of a work is determined directly by statute: “The author of a work is the person who creates it” (LIAW Art. 8). Rights over the work arise not through an administrative act similar to registration but by the act of creation. Therefore, protection under LIAW is tied to creation; registration is evidentiary, not constitutive. Consequently, the “invalidity of the author’s right” is technically not applicable, and the available remedies are declaratory and infringement actions. Presumptions of authorship are regulated to facilitate proof: the person whose name appears on a published copy shall, until proven otherwise, be deemed the author (Art. 11); where the author’s name is not indicated, the publisher or reproducer is treated as the author under certain conditions (Art. 12). In this framework, remedies under LIAW are not “invalidity” but determination of authorship, injunctions for prevention and cessation of infringement, and compensation claims.

General Framework of the Invalidity Mechanism under the IP Code

The IP Code regulates, separately for each type of right, the substantive grounds leading to invalidity and the effects of the decision. For trademarks, invalidity claims are based on the existence of absolute or relative grounds for refusal that were overlooked during registration; for designs, typical grounds include lack of novelty or individual character; for patents, failure to meet inventive step, novelty, or sufficient disclosure criteria may result in invalidity. For utility models, where there is no explicit provision, patent rules apply by analogy. The invalidity mechanism also applies where the conditions underlying the registration of a geographical indication or traditional product name are absent. The competent court for such actions is the Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights Civil Court; where no such specialized court exists, Civil Courts of First Instance have jurisdiction. In actions brought against certain decisions of the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (“TÜRKPATENT”), the Ankara Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights Civil Court is exclusively competent and authorized.

Trademark Invalidity: Grounds and Effects

The invalidity of a trademark is adjudicated where the mark has been registered despite the presence of one of the absolute or relative grounds for refusal set out in IP Code Arts. 5 and 6. The framework of the invalidity action is consolidated in IP Code Art. 25. Invalidity decisions are, as a rule, effective ex tunc — the protection is deemed never to have arisen from the filing date. Trademark revocation, however, is regulated in IP Code Art. 26 as an administrative remedy and entered into force on 10 January 2024; a revocation decision is, as a rule, prospective and produces effects from the date of the request (Art. 26/6). Thus, unlike invalidity, it does not have retroactive effect. This distinction ensures that signs that never satisfied protection conditions are eliminated retroactively, while subsequent issues such as non-use or genericization are addressed through a forward-looking administrative revocation regime. IP Code Art. 27 provides that invalidity and revocation decisions have erga omnes effect, are recorded in the registry upon finalization, and published in the Official Bulletin; it also enumerates exceptions to retroactivity for final judgments and fully performed contracts.

Design Invalidity: Protection Requirements, Standing, and Time Limits

The principal grounds for design invalidity include non-compliance with the statutory definition, lack of novelty or individual character, bad-faith filing, or unauthorized use of an intellectual property right; these grounds are exhaustively listed in IP Code Art. 77. Partial invalidity is possible, provided that the remaining part preserves design identity and meets protection requirements. Any person having a legitimate interest may seek invalidity; in some cases, only the prior right holder or design right holders may bring the action. The suit is filed against the person recorded as the right holder for registered designs, and against the alleged right holder for unregistered designs. Invalidity actions may be filed during the protection term or within five years of its expiry. The effect of the decision is explicitly regulated in IP Code Art. 79 as ex tunc; its erga omnes effect is completed by deletion from the registry and publication in the Bulletin.

Patent Invalidity and Its Application to Utility Models

The grounds for patent invalidity are set out in IP Code Art. 138, including lack of novelty or inventive step, insufficient disclosure, or extension beyond the original application. The effect of the decision is regulated in IP Code Art. 139 and, as with designs, is retroactive: protection afforded to the patent or application is deemed never to have arisen. Exceptions to ex tunc effect for final judgments and performed contracts also apply here; the decision is binding erga omnes and leads to deletion from the registry. For utility models, IP Code Art. 145 provides that patent provisions apply by analogy where compatible; the framework for filing an invalidity action during the term of protection and within five years thereafter is given in IP Code Art. 144. In practice, the consequences of utility model invalidity are governed by the ex tunc–exception pattern of Art. 139.

Invalidity of Geographical Indications and Traditional Product Names

Invalidity of a geographical indication or traditional product name may be sought by any person having a legitimate interest. Where the court determines that the registration does not meet statutory requirements, it renders a decision of invalidity; this regime is systematically set out in IP Code Art. 50. The effect of the decision is regulated in IP Code Art. 51: invalidity decisions have erga omnes effect, are deleted from the registry, and published in the Bulletin. This explicitly guarantees both the erga omnes effect and the registry dimension of invalidity for geographical indications.

Procedural Architecture: Competent Court, Defendant, and Registry Consequences

For civil actions under the IP Code, the competent court is the Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights Civil Court; where no such court exists, the Civil Courts of First Instance are competent. For actions against TÜRKPATENT decisions specified in the law, the Ankara Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights Civil Court has exclusive competence. As for venue, the plaintiff’s domicile, or the place where the unlawful act occurred or its effects were observed, may generally be chosen; however, special jurisdiction rules under the IP Code (e.g., exclusive jurisdiction of the Ankara court for TÜRKPATENT actions) prevail. For designs, invalidity actions must be directed against the recorded right holder (or the person claiming right ownership in unregistered designs). For trademarks and geographical indications, the standing and right-to-sue framework is based on the principle of interest. By its nature, an invalidity action is constitutive; its effects arise upon finalization. Deletion from and publication in the registry are of a declaratory nature. Final judgments are notified ex officio to TÜRKPATENT, deleted from the registry, and published. This scheme forms the common backbone of IP Code Arts. 27 (trademark), 79 (design), 139 (patent), and 51 (geographical indication).

Invalidity–Revocation Distinction and the Retroactivity Regime

The IP Code, unlike the previous system, separates “invalidity” and “revocation” into two distinct institutions: invalidity as a judicial remedy with retroactive effect, and revocation as an administrative remedy before TÜRKPATENT with prospective effect. Thus, while signs that should never have been protected are eliminated retroactively through invalidity, dynamic issues such as non-use are resolved under the administrative revocation regime. IP Code Art. 27 concretizes this distinction regarding effects; final judgments and fully performed contracts are exceptions to retroactivity. In designs and patents, the ex tunc effect of invalidity decisions is likewise balanced by exceptions, and in geographical indications final judgments and performed contracts are preserved. Third parties who suffer damage due to bad faith or gross negligence retain their right to claim compensation.

Judicial Remedies and Evidence Regime under LIAW

Because protection under LIAW is tied to the act of creation, practice proceeds through actions for determination of authorship and infringement. Presumptions of authorship (Arts. 11–12) rationalize the burden of proof. Registration (Art. 13) is optional and not mandatory for the emergence of statutory protection; nevertheless, registration certificates serve as strong evidence of authorship. Depending on the dispute, technical evidence such as content similarity, creation dates, drafts, and source materials are assessed together with expert review. The main legal bases for this scheme are LIAW Arts. 8, 11, 12, and 13.

Impact of Invalidity on Registration and Contractual Relations

Since an invalidity decision retroactively removes protection from the filing date in trademarks, contractual relations such as licenses and assignments generally lose their basis. However, pursuant to IP Code Art. 27, retroactivity is restricted for finalized and performed contracts, and restitution or compensation may be balanced in equity. The same pattern applies to designs and patents; the erga omnes effect reduces market uncertainty, and the mechanism of ex officio notification, deletion, and publication ensures protection of third parties. In geographical indications, the post-invalidity deletion and publication mechanism applies likewise for supervision and use agreements. Thus, invalidity results in consequences that affect not only the right holder but the entire economic organization, balancing fairness.

Brief Roadmap for Practitioners

In any given case, the type of right and the nature of the dispute must first be correctly identified. For works, the dispute lies not in “invalidity” but in the axis of “determination and infringement”; presumptions of authorship and the evidence regime are crucial. For industrial property rights, where a defect collapses the basis of registration, an invalidity action must be pursued; in cases of subsequent non-use, an administrative revocation (for trademarks) must be pursued; for designs and patents, invalidity or other termination routes must be followed. Jurisdiction and venue rules require proper selection of court and forum; once the decision becomes final, registry entry and publication steps must be duly completed. This approach ensures the protection of both the right holder’s interest and third-party reliance.

CONCLUSION

Invalidity opens onto two distinct regimes along the LIAW–IP Code divide. Under LIAW, protection depends on the act of creation and registration is evidentiary rather than constitutive; thus, the institution of “invalidity of the author’s right” is not conceptualized. Under the IP Code, invalidity is based on typified grounds for each right; its effects are generally ex tunc and have erga omnes character. For trademarks, an additional administrative revocation mechanism has been introduced as a prospective remedy. The entire regime is completed by the deletion–publication mechanism, centering on registry security and third-party protection. In practice, the key is to classify the case correctly, employ the proper mechanism, and ensure that the decision’s reflection in the registry is technically complete; thereby equity and market predictability are simultaneously established