12. The representative of Turkey said with respect to the first sub question that in addition to its specific regime for the protection of trademarks Turkey had established a sui generis system for the protection of geographical indications. Both trademarks and GIs were currently protected in the context of a decree, but two separate draft laws were pending in parliament in that regard.
13. With respect to the protection of the geographical indications, following examination and acceptance, Article 9 of Decree 555 provided that where necessary, or if there was an objection upon publication in accordance with Article 11, the Turkish Patent Institute might require an examination of the application by one or more public institutions, universities or independent private institutions. The names of these institutions were not specifically mentioned in the legislation itself. Depending on the nature of the application, views from local institutions or research institutions could be requested. These institutions only provided advice and did not express any views on whether or not the subject matter of the application constituted a geographical indication.
14. With respect to the procedure for trademark applications the legislation did not itself specify any sources of information. One absolute ground for refusal of a trademark application was that the sign was identical or confusingly similar with an earlier trademark in respect of an identical or same type of product or service. In that context examiners consulted a database that had been established in 2005. Under Article 7 on the protection of trademarks, some basic criteria were applied in Turkey. She said there was also an on-going twinning project with the European Union in which the Turkish Patent Institute was working towards more extensive and detailed guidelines to be applied which would be published after conclusion of the project.
