In short
Novelty in a design requires that an appearance which is the same, or so close that it cannot be distinguished, was not made available to the public before the application. Individual character is not a copy of this condition. Saying it is not known in Turkey does not mean it was not disclosed in the world. No year of protection is added to this text. Without a document of the disclosure, a novelty result is not spoken.
The application date is the moment at which the comparison stands. If there is a catalogue, a sale, or a fair record before that date, that record is read. Without the record, an earlier appearance is not assumed. The individual-character debate is not written so that it passes by itself into the novelty condition. The decision keeps the two conditions apart.
Where disclosure to the public is looked for
Disclosure to the public may be a sale, a catalogue, a web page, or a fair. Where the disclosure was made is not limited to a single province. The same appearance visible in another country may also enter the debate. Whether it entered is read from the date and the clarity of the document. If the document is blurred, it stands in its blurred state. Clarity is not invented.
The person's own earlier design may also be an obstacle. Saying that they sold their own product earlier is a different line from someone else's copy. A sales document, an invoice, or a catalogue page carries this line. Without an invoice, it is not said that a sale happened. If a contract describes the appearance, the description is read. The description does not stand in for the photograph in every file. A period is not written under this disclosure.
Individual character is another question
Novelty is the question of whether it is the same. Individual character is the question of whether it leaves a different overall impression on the informed user. That question sits under individual character. The two stand apart in the registration examination. One having passed is not treated as the other having passed. The petition does not melt the two conditions into one sentence.
A small difference of a line may or may not be enough for novelty. Whether it is enough is not said before it is set side by side with the earlier appearance. The visuals set side by side are the register printout and the application annex. If there is no annex, a sentence of difference is not built. The record may show which visual was taken as the basis in the examination. If it does not show that, the visual taken as the basis is not invented.
One's own disclosure, and time
If there was an early disclosure to the public, a debate about time may open. This text does not write the length of that debate. It does not add a year of protection either. How the year runs sits under the term of protection. The frame under that heading is not pasted in place of the novelty condition. If the application was made after the disclosure, the order is read from the document. If there is no order, an order is not invented.
In a multiple application, each appearance carries its own novelty. One being new is not treated as the one beside it being new. The logic of a separate application sits under multiple designs. The trademark route on packaging is not a copy of the appearance route. That separation sits under packaging. The three headings are not mixed in the same petition. The decision shows which right was examined.
The invalidity line
A lack of novelty may be one of the bases of an invalidity claim. The claim should show the document of the earlier appearance. If the document does not carry a date and clarity, the claim remains incomplete. An incomplete claim does not bring the register down by itself. The other side's answer is also read over the same appearance. Another product is not put in place of this appearance.
The register shows whether the registration is standing. The register entry is not the record of the novelty examination. The two documents are kept apart. The petition presents the register printout together with the earlier catalogue. If one is absent, the other does not stand in for it. A year of protection is not added to this line either. An article number is not invented.
What is separated in design novelty
Novelty is whether the same appearance was made available to the public before, and it is read apart from individual character. An Ankara lawyer reads from the document that the office being in Çankaya does not change the authority of the registry institution. A year of protection is not added. The examination of individual character does not stand in for this condition.
Conclusion
Novelty in a design depends on disclosure to the public before the application, and local recognition is not the only measure. Individual character is a separate condition. No year of protection is added to this text. A result is not spoken while the disclosure document and the register do not stand. The frame sits on the intellectual property page. The basis is the Industrial Property Code No. 6769.