In short
A decision of the Re-examination and Evaluation Board (YİDK) is the final decision of the Office. An action can be brought within two months of notice. Those two months are read through Article 15/C of Law No. 5000. The court with jurisdiction and venue is the Ankara Intellectual and Industrial Property Court. Article 156/2 of Law No. 6769 is a rule of place. The time limit is not tied to that article, and a day is not drawn out of that article. The time limit is preclusive. An action to annul a YİDK decision is read separately from the date of service and from the rule of place.
The two months do not stick to the judicial vacation
The time limit is read from the day the decision was notified. The day of the board and the day of service are not the same envelope. Service by post and electronic service are not the same envelope. Whichever route was used, the date of that envelope is taken as the basis. This time limit in the special statute does not extend by itself because of the judicial vacation. Adding a month because the last day fell in the vacation can leave the action out of time. An extra month is not written. The calendar is not inflated so that the time limit will pass by itself. The two months are the time limit written in the file. A new time limit is not invented by turning it into a number of days. If there is no date of service, the time limit is not built.
The action is directed at the Office. If there was an opposing party during the objection, that party is also joined to the action. The lawyer's internal note alone does not take the place of the date of notice. If the letter that came to the lawyer and the letter that went to the client are mixed, the dates of the two are written separately. A conflict of dates does not start the two months again by itself. Which service started the time limit comes from the record on the envelope.
This action is not invalidity
Annulment of a YİDK decision discusses whether the act of the Office was lawful. Erasure of a registered trade mark is an invalidity action, and the Office is not a party in that action. Even if the two are brought on the same day, the petition and the opponent change. A request for invalidity is not pasted onto the annulment petition. An opposition to publication is not a copy of this petition either. An opposition to publication is an application made while the announcement is running. An action brought after the board decision has issued is not named an opposition to the announcement. Which act the decision targets is read from the text of the decision. If there is no text, the target is not invented.
Which board decision the petition is brought against should be written with the number and the date of the decision. If there is no number, the action may have been brought against the wrong act. The wrong act does not by itself forgive the two months onto the right act. If service of the right decision is separate, the time limit runs from that envelope. If more than one decision was served in the same envelope, the time limit of each decision is read from its own text. If the envelopes are mixed, the mixed date is written, and a single date is not invented. The name of the Office, as the opponent, should stand expressly in the petition. If only the short name of the board is written, the gap is stated separately. A missing opponent does not change the rule of place. Article 156/2 is still for place. The time limit is still read from notice and through Article 15/C. A new number of days is not added.
This court in Ankara is the judicial place of the act because of the rule of place. The trade mark owner living in another province does not carry an action against a decision of the Office to that province. Article 156/2 shows this place. That article does not build the two-month time limit. The time limit is read with the notice and with Article 15/C. In another dispute, venue is read separately again. The rule of place does not gather the address of every intellectual-property action into one court.
How the annulment petition is read
The board decision, the service envelope, and the petition stand together. The three are not treated as one paper. Counsel in Ankara does not write the address of the Çankaya office in place of the court. The competent authority is the court in the rule of place. The district of the office does not change this place, and it does not start the time limit either. An extra month is not written so that the time limit will pass by itself. The two months are tied to the date of service. Article 156/2 is only for place. The day of the action is not turned into a day other than the two months written in the file. A new number of days is not added.
Neighbouring doors
The procedure for an opposition to publication is under the opposition process, the frame of an action against an act of the Office is under a decision of the Office, and erasure of the registration is under invalidity. These three do not repeat the time limit and the place of YİDK annulment. Each looks at its own document.
Conclusion
An action to annul a YİDK decision is brought within two months of notice, and in the Ankara Intellectual and Industrial Property Court. The judicial vacation does not extend the time limit by itself. Article 156/2 is a rule of place. The time limit is read from Article 15/C and from service. Invalidity is not a copy of this petition. The frame is on the intellectual property page, and the basis is the text of Law No. 5000 and Law No. 6769. The time limit is not built without the service envelope and the decision.