In short
Invalidity of a design debates in court whether the registration is without a basis. Infringement asks the use. The question of how invalidity of a design is separated from infringement puts the health of the document and the use of the product at two separate doors. One is built so that protection is never born. The other is built as whether the appearance was used while the protection stands. The two claims are not the same sentence.
The question of health is not the question of use
In invalidity, whether the design was worthy of registration is spoken. The other side chooses this route so that protection is never born. In infringement, the registered visual and the appearance of the product are set side by side. The detail of the overall impression is in the infringement article. This text does not build that test from the start. The question of health is read from the basis of the registration, not from the shelf where the product was sold.
That the term is five years, and that with renewal it goes up to twenty-five years, is under a separate heading. The term rule does not stand in for the ground of invalidity. A renewal petition is not a court decision either. If the protection has ended, a prohibition of use is not built as if a right were standing. The term ending does not by itself mean the registration was without a basis from the start either. The two questions may stand side by side. One does not change the other's name.
The defence does not change the name of the action
A defence of invalidity may come inside an infringement action. The defence does not turn the action into an invalidity file by itself. From whom the judgment will be asked is built according to the person the claim is directed at. The defendant may also say the health of the registration while debating the use. This sentence does not turn the infringement claim into a decision of invalidity. The court reads from the petition which claim was opened.
A notice letter is not a decision of invalidity. The renewal papers do not stand in for the ground that keeps the registration standing either. The document shows to whom the design appears to belong. The existence of the document does not by itself close the claim that the protection was never born. If there is no visual, it is not known which question was asked. The registered image and the opposing product stand side by side in the question of use. In the question of health, the registration's own basis is read.
The register and the place of sale are not the same court
The register shows to whom the design belongs. The place where the product was sold is not the single word of the jurisdiction sentence. The two places are not taken for the same court name. An Ankara lawyer who separates the claim does not treat the place of the Çankaya office as the choice of court. The office being in Çankaya does not determine the place where the invalidity action will be heard. The competent court does not come out of the office's district.
The application record is read with the right holder on the register. The point of sale does not by itself tell the health of that record. The province where the use passed is not written in place of the ground that the registration should never have been born. If the file has both a register copy and a product visual, which one belongs to which claim is separated from the petition. A mixed envelope does not make the two questions one claim.
A claim is not built without a visual
Invalidity debates whether the protection was born. Infringement looks at whether the appearance was used while the protection exists. If the visual is not there, the question of use cannot be built. If the registration certificate is not there, the question of health stays in the air too. The term heading is not the ground of these two questions. That a renewal was made does not by itself announce that the registration was born sound from the start.
The decision is built without changing the name of the claim. Even if two claims come side by side in the same petition, their grounds are written separately. One looks at the basis of the document. The other looks at the appearance of the product. The reader separates from the text which sentence is health and which sentence is use.
Even if the two claims come side by side, their grounds are kept apart. The visual is the material of the question of use. The basis of the registration is the material of the question of health. One does not close the other's sentence. The renewal papers do not stand in for this separation.
How the two claims are separated
The two questions stand apart even in the same product photograph. Use is not written in place of the ground of health. A renewal petition is not treated as a court decision either. The defence does not change the name of the action by itself. The office's district does not choose the competent place.
Conclusion
Invalidity of a design asks the health of the protection. Infringement asks the use. The overall impression is in design infringement. The term rule is in the design term. The sibling claim in patents is in the article on invalidity of a patent. The frame is on the intellectual property page. The basis is the design provisions of the Industrial Property Code No. 6769. If there is no visual, it is not known which question was asked.