Registration of Trademarks Containing The Raki Geographical Indication as Court of Cassation Quashes Court of Appeal Judgment
Article 5(1)(i) of Industrial Property Code No 6769 (the IP Code) prohibits the registration as trademarks of signs consisting of, or containing, a registered GI. The provision’s broad wording raises the question of whether the mere presence of the protected name in the sign applied for is sufficient to justify refusal. Answering this question requires an assessment of the relationship between the collective nature of GIs and the function of a trademark in distinguishing the products of a particular undertaking.
Raki, an anise-flavoured distilled alcoholic beverage specific to Türkiye, has been registered as a GI under C2009/007, with effect from 15 April 2009. It is defined as a distinctive, colourless distilled alcoholic beverage whose characteristic features derive from natural factors within the Republic of Türkiye, particularly grapes and anise grown in Türkiye and the traditional production methods practised there, and whose production, processing and all other operations take place entirely within Türkiye. Since the registration certificate identifies the Republic of Türkiye as the production area, protection is not confined to a particular city. Rather, it is based on the product’s characteristics associated with Türkiye, the raw materials used and traditional production methods. The fact that the term also serves as the name of the product does not deprive it of its status as a GI.
The Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (TÜRKPATENT) adopts a specific approach to GIs consisting solely of a product name, such as raki. They permit the registration of a mark incorporating such an indication alongside a distinctive element, provided that the specification of goods is restricted to products complying with the characteristics of the GI. However, where a place name is added to the term “raki”, it provides refusal on the grounds that consumers might perceive different types of raki specific to different regions and that the protected name might become generic.
A trademark application containing the term “raki” gave rise to a sequence of decisions: (1) a first-instance judgment in 2022; (2) a judgment of the Regional Court of Appeal following an appeal; (3) a subsequent ruling by the Court of Cassation quashing that judgment; and (4) the latest judgment in 2026 following reconsideration by the Regional Court of Appeal. These decisions illustrate the importance of the sign as a whole, the applicant’s earlier trademarks, the scope of the specification of goods and consumer perception when applying the absolute ground for refusal arising from the raki GI. The dispute also demonstrates the need to assess separately the objection based on GI protection, descriptiveness and distinctiveness acquired through use.
The application at issue contained the name of a place in Türkiye together with the term “raki” and the expression “tek üzüm serisi” (“single grape variety series”). From the outset, the goods covered by the application were specified as “raki complying with the characteristics of the Raki geographical indication”. Nevertheless, TÜRKPATENT refused the application under article 5(1)(i) of the IP Code. Relying on its earlier family of marks and long-standing use, the applicant sought annulment of TÜRKPATENT’s decision.
In its judgment of 30 September 2022, the Ankara Fifth Civil IP Court annulled TÜRKPATENT’s decision (case no 2021/345, decision no 2022/237). It reasoned that raki could be produced using grapes and anise from different regions of Türkiye. Consumers would therefore understand the place name as referring to grapes from that region, rather than a different type of raki.
The court also relied on the applicant’s subsisting family of marks combining the same place name with “raki”, registered before the GI. Their long-standing use had established a commercial origin that consumers would recognise in the new application. Together with the restriction to raki complying with the product specification, this supported the finding that article 5(1)(i) did not prevent registration.
The 20th Civil Chamber of the Ankara Regional Court of Appeal (RCA) endorsed this assessment in its judgment of 9 May 2025 (case no 2023/900, decision no 2025/1018), noting established sector practice of presenting the GI alongside the main trademark. However, examining other absolute grounds ex officio in the public interest, it found the application descriptive under article 5(1)(c): the place name identified a city renowned for raki, while the remaining expressions described the product’s characteristics. Finding acquired distinctiveness unproven and the family-of-marks argument insufficient, it set aside the first-instance judgment and dismissed the action.
The 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation reached a different conclusion on 26 March 2026 (case no 2025/4626, decision no 2026/1723). It considered the earlier registrations identified in the expert report and their use for the relevant goods, which the applicant had relied on since the administrative proceedings. It held that the common element had acquired distinctiveness through use under article 5(2). It also considered the application an extension of the existing family of marks that consumers could recognise as deriving from the earlier marks. It therefore quashed the RCA’s judgment and remitted the case.
Following that ruling, the RCA upheld the action and annulled TÜRKPATENT’s decision on 10 June 2026 (case no 2026/1179, decision no 2026/1142).
Of particular importance to the assessment in these decisions is the fact that the applicant had already established the combination of the same place name and the term “raki” as a trademark before protection of the GI arose. The new application was not treated as a geographical designation being presented to consumers for the first time. Rather, it was accepted that the perception of commercial origin established through the earlier marks could continue in the application retaining the same combination and adding the expression “single grape variety series”. This approach is relevant to assessing how an existing family of marks may develop through product diversification.
The earlier marks play a role in two distinct legal assessments. The first-instance court relied on its finding that consumers would perceive the sign as the trademark of a particular undertaking rather than as the equivalent of the registered geographical indication. The Court of Cassation took the same history into account when assessing whether the descriptiveness objection could be overcome through acquired distinctiveness and the perception of a family of marks.
Accordingly, when assessing similar applications containing the raki GI, consideration may be given not only to the dates and goods covered by the earlier registrations, but also to the elements shared by the new mark and the earlier marks and the distinctiveness those elements have acquired through use. In this case, retaining the same place name and product term explains how the perception of commercial origin generated by earlier use carries over to the new application. Together with the restriction of the specification of goods to products complying with the GI, this continuity provides a concrete basis supporting acceptance of the application.
First published by WTR Market Insight in Oct 29, 2026.