In short
The answer to where an action against an Office decision is brought is, under Article 156/2 of Law No. 6769, the Ankara Intellectual and Industrial Rights Civil Court. This note answers the question of place. A day for the action is not here. How the time runs from notification sits under a separate heading. That the office is in Çankaya does not choose the place of the action.
The place is tied to the Office decision itself
The rule is for all of the Office's decisions within the scope of this statute. A decision of the Board of Re-examination and Evaluation is an Office decision as well. That the owner of the mark lives in another province does not carry the action against an Office transaction to that province. The action is directed at the Office. If there is an opposing party during the opposition, their place in the action is read in the note on time. The list of opponents is not built again here. The envelope of the notice does not stand in for the rule of place. The place is in the statute, and service does not change Article 156/2. A day for the action is not added to this place.
Not every trade-mark dispute goes to this court
Invalidity of a registered mark is brought against the owner of the mark, and the Office is not shown as a party in that action. A claim of infringement is not the annulment of an Office decision either. The place of these actions is not treated as identical with Article 156/2, which was written for an Office transaction. The address of the office in Çankaya does not determine which courthouse the petition will go to. For an Office decision the statute shows the Ankara Intellectual and Industrial Rights Civil Court. In another dispute jurisdiction is read separately, and the address on the register does not itself change this rule of place.
Neighbouring actions do not carry the rule of place
How the time runs sits under a Board decision. The arrangement of the action for invalidity sits under invalidity of a trade mark, and the split between invalidity and cancellation under the difference from cancellation. The procedure of the opposition itself sits under a trade-mark opposition. These records do not carry the place of the action against an Office decision to another province, and they do not write a day for the action. The place stands in Article 156/2. The time is not put in place of that article.
How the place is read
The Office decision, the envelope of service, and the sentence of authority in the petition of the action are read together. The three are not taken for a single document. A lawyer in Ankara does not suppose that the office in Çankaya carries the action to the Ankara Intellectual and Industrial Rights Civil Court. The statute shows the place. The province where the owner of the mark lives does not itself take the action against an Office transaction to that province. A day for the action is not under this heading either, because the day is read in the note on time, and it is not invented here.
The envelope of the notice does not change the place
The address at which the Office decision was served does not itself choose the court where the action will be brought. The place, under Article 156/2 of Law No. 6769, is the Ankara Intellectual and Industrial Rights Civil Court. The province where the owner of the mark lives does not carry the action against an Office transaction to that province. That the office is in Çankaya does not change this place either, because the office address does not determine the competent authority. A day for the action is not added to this place. How the time runs from notification is read under a separate heading, and a day is not invented here.
A decision of the Board of Re-examination and Evaluation is an Office decision as well, and it is tied to the same rule of place. A claim of invalidity and a claim of infringement are not the annulment of an Office decision. Their place is not treated as identical with Article 156/2. The petition does not melt, in the same sentence of authority, a request directed at the Office and a request directed at the owner of the mark. The address on the register, the envelope of service, and the text of the decision are read together. The document of service does not stand in for the rule of place. The decision does not write another province as competent while the court the statute shows stands. The list of opponents, if there is an opposing party at the opposition stage, is read in the note on time. This note does not build that list again. If the line of authority in the petition writes a province other than the court the statute shows, the line is corrected. The correction is not made according to the district where the office is. The date of service does not change the rule of place, and a day for the action is not invented from this date. A change of the owner's address does not carry the place of the action against an Office decision either.
Conclusion
An action against an Office decision is brought in the Ankara Intellectual and Industrial Rights Civil Court under Article 156/2 of Law No. 6769. A day for the action is not written. The time sits under the heading of the action for annulment against a Board decision. The frame sits on the intellectual property page, and the basis is in the text of the Industrial Property Code No. 6769.