In short
A domain-name dispute is not of itself a trademark action, and a complaint made to the registry and the action in court are separate doors. The result in one does not write the petition of the other. The question whether this dispute is a trademark action is not closed by looking at similarity of the word. A number of days is not put on either door, and the period is read from the relevant text, because the door is not chosen before the concrete registration, the complaint paper and the petition stand side by side. A missing paper does not turn the word into an infringement, a guess does not fill that gap, and the relevant decision does not close that gap either.
A complaint and an action are separate doors
The procedure of the organisation that allocates the domain name debates, inside that procedure, to whom the name will be written, and in the action that comes before the court it looks at whether the trademark is being used. How many days the registry's complaint lasts is not written. The period is read from that organisation's own text, and a day is not invented when there is no text. Obtaining a result in the complaint does not of itself write a court judgment. A court judgment is also not treated as having changed the registration line without an application under that procedure, because a result is not announced before the concrete application, the service and the decision stand side by side. A missing paper does not turn the complaint into an action, a guess does not fill that gap, and the relevant document does not close that gap either.
A number of days is written on neither side
The registry's period does not turn into the period for an action, and the two calendars are not carried across to each other. Which door the service belongs to is read from the complaint paper and the statement of claim. Which route was chosen in the concrete file is not said before the decision and the application papers stand side by side. These two doors are not counted as the same petition, because a day is not written before the concrete period text, the service and the application papers stand side by side. A missing paper does not merge the two calendars, a guess does not fill that gap, and the relevant decision does not close that gap either.
The same word is not an infringement by itself
A domain name carrying the same word as the trademark may not be enough by itself for infringement, and the relation of the use to the goods or services is examined separately. That examination sits in the texts on what can be done in a trademark infringement and unfair competition; it is not copied here. That a trade name and a trademark are separate rights is in the account of trade name and trademark. The three subjects are not dissolved into a single action because the word is the same, because an infringement is not announced before the concrete use, the registration certificate and the petition stand side by side. A missing paper does not turn similarity into a right, a guess does not fill that gap, and the relevant decision does not close that gap either.
The competent authority does not come out of the office's district
If an action is brought, the office being in Çankaya does not choose the court, and the address of the registry does not by itself determine jurisdiction for the civil action. Jurisdiction comes out of the action's own rule and the party's residence. How registration works is in the text on trademark registration. The framework sits on the intellectual property law page, because jurisdiction is not announced before the concrete residence, the petition and the registration document stand side by side. A missing paper does not make the district a court, a guess does not fill that gap, and the relevant decision does not close that gap either.
The door is not chosen without documents
If there is no registration printout, trademark registration certificate and petition, it is not drawn which door is open. Industrial Property Code No. 6769 gives the frame of the trademark right. The registry's procedure is a separate text. The two texts do not carry each other's number of days. If the set of documents is incomplete, the name of the dispute does not by itself choose the route, because the door is not announced before the concrete registration printout, the trademark certificate and the petition stand side by side. A missing paper does not choose the route, a guess does not fill that gap, and the relevant service does not close that gap either.
Conclusion
A domain-name complaint and a trademark action are separate doors, and one does not carry the other's period. A number of days is not invented. The condition of trademark infringement is in a separate text. The competent court does not come out of the office's district. If there is no registration and no trademark certificate, the door is not chosen, because a result is not announced before the concrete complaint, the petition and the decision stand side by side. A missing paper does not carry the period, a guess does not fill that gap, and the relevant application does not close that gap either.