In short
A bad-faith trade-mark registration is discussed through the knowledge and the purpose of the person who files. That the signs resemble each other does not, on its own, produce a decision of bad faith. A likelihood of confusion is a separate discussion of refusal. Bad faith is not the short name of that discussion. A decision number is not here. A year of non-use is not invented here either.
Purpose is not read from the sentence of similarity
It can be claimed that the applicant knew someone else's sign and filed in order to block it, to sit on it, or to hold it. The claim is supported with concrete use, a relationship, and timing. Purpose is not counted as bad because two words stand side by side. Similarity alone is not written as a decision of bad faith.
Bad faith does not itself close because the signs resemble each other little. The evidence looks at the relationship on the file. The result of another file does not carry the purpose of this filing like a ready judgment. A precedent number is not invented. While there is no number, the result is not copied onto this filing.
The document of relationship and of timing
Earlier use can be shown by an order, correspondence, or a partnership relationship. If there is no document of the relationship, purpose is not built from a guess. Timing shows, with the register record, from which moment the filing was made. If the application day on the register does not stand on the file, it is not invented. The day is read from the bulletin or from the register extract.
Which door the person who used the sign earlier will go to sits in the record someone else registered my mark. A year of non-use is not put in place of this discussion of purpose. The year is not in this note. Serious non-use is the subject of another door, and it is not carried here as a figure.
The door of opposition and the door of the action
Bad faith can be put forward at the Office, on publication, as a ground of opposition. The course of the opposition sits in the record the trade-mark opposition process. After registration it is discussed, inside the relative grounds of refusal, in an action for invalidity. In that action the Office is not a party. The action is directed at the owner of the mark on the register. The frame of invalidity sits in the record invalidity of a trade mark.
The frame of relative refusal is in Article 6 of Law No. 6769. The action for invalidity is in Article 25. These two articles are written on the file. A new article number is not added. The route against an Office decision sits in the record annulment of a Board decision. The two-month time in that record is not rebuilt here. An opposition whose time has passed does not itself become an action.
A precedent number is not carried
A decision given in another file does not make the bad faith of this filing a ready result. If the number of the decision is missing, a number is not written. Even if it exists, the result is not copied without a document of the relationship. The petition is not treated as having attached correspondence that was not seen. The correspondence should stand in the annex.
If the register extract and the bulletin announcement conflict, it is asked first which document is current. The conflict does not cut short that the purpose is bad. Purpose is read from the evidence of the knowledge and of its target. If there is no evidence, the sentence of similarity does not stand in for the sentence of purpose.
If there is a relationship of distribution, dealership, or joint production between the applicant and the earlier user, the relationship is read from the contract. Even if the contract has ended, the ending does not itself erase the earlier knowledge. On which document the ending is written is on the file. While the document is missing, the relationship is not treated as never having been set up. If there is no relationship at all, the absence is not filled by saying the purpose is bad. Neither end is cut short without evidence.
If the same person has more than one filing, each filing is read from its own register record. A refusal in one filing does not itself make the other one in bad faith. The refusal decision is in the ground of that file. The ground does not become proof of purpose before it is carried page by page into this file. The carrying is done with the document in the annex of the petition. While there is no annex, a decision number is not written either. A year of non-use is not added to this carrying. The power of attorney shows in whose name the filing was opened. The representative's name is not itself written as the owner of the bad faith. The representative's knowledge is asked separately from the client's document. If there is no knowledge, the representative does not become the addressee of the sentence of purpose.
Where bad faith is read from
A lawyer in Ankara reads from the register and from the petition that the office being in Çankaya does not choose the court of the invalidity action. A year of non-use is not added, and similarity alone is not counted as a decision of bad faith. Purpose is not treated as having been built before the application document, the correspondence of the relationship, and the register extract stand side by side.
Conclusion
Bad faith is not similarity alone. The knowledge and the purpose of the applicant are read with evidence. Opposition and invalidity are separate doors. A year of non-use is not here. If there is no document of the relationship, it is not cut short that the purpose is bad. The frame sits on the intellectual property page. The basis is the Industrial Property Code No. 6769.