Most IP practitioners would probably answer "yes" if asked whether the title of a successful video game can function as a trade mark. However, can a relatively commonplace word, forming part of a fictional city within a video game, become so strongly associated with a single publisher through decades of use that it deserves trade mark protection in its own right?

A recent final decision of a Turkish Intellectual Property Court suggests that, under the right circumstances, the answer may also be yes. Yasemin Aktas explains.

The judgment is remarkable for several reasons. It recognised trade mark protection for a relatively commonplace word forming part of a fictional city despite the absence of an earlier national registration for that word.

Equally noteworthy is the procedural history of the case. The Court rendered its judgment at the first hearing, without appointing an expert panel, and the decision became final within approximately five months – an unusually swift outcome for Turkish trade mark invalidation proceedings.

Video games create brands, not just products

Unlike many traditional consumer products, successful video games rarely remain just software. They evolve into entertainment ecosystems.

Players do not simply remember the title of a game. They remember its fictional cities, characters, atmosphere, visual identity and stories. Over time, these elements become inseparable from the publisher behind them.

For that reason, fictional locations often acquire considerable commercial value. Consumers encountering those names may immediately think of a particular game franchise, even where the publisher's name is nowhere to be found.

This presents an interesting challenge for trade mark law. Protection may no longer be confined to the complete game title. Through long-standing and intensive use, individual elements within that title may themselves begin to function as indicators of commercial origin.

A fictional city – and one word within it

The recent Turkish judgment provides an interesting illustration of this evolution.

The dispute concerned a trade mark incorporating the dominant element of a fictional city appearing in a globally successful video game franchise. Rather than relying on an earlier Turkish registration for that dominant word, the claimant argued that more than 20 years of worldwide use had fundamentally changed how consumers perceived it.

The Court accepted that argument. After reviewing extensive documentary evidence, it concluded that the disputed word had acquired distinctiveness through continuous worldwide use and had become closely associated with a single commercial source.

It further found that the defendant had sought to capitalise on that reputation by adopting both the dominant verbal element and visual features recalling the claimant's game.

The procedural handling of the case is equally striking. Instead of referring the dispute to a court-appointed expert panel – as is commonly seen in Turkish trade mark litigation – the Court considered the documentary evidence sufficiently compelling to resolve the dispute itself.

Judgment was therefore rendered at the first hearing, and the decision became final only a few months later.

Acquired distinctiveness is ultimately about consumer perception

The most significant aspect of the judgment is not that it protects a fictional city.

It is that the Court recognised that one element of that fictional city name had, through decades of use, acquired an independent trade mark significance.

Standing alone, the word was neither invented nor particularly distinctive by nature. Yet continuous commercial use had gradually transformed the way consumers perceived it.

Rather than understanding it merely as an ordinary word, consumers had come to recognise it as identifying a particular fictional universe – and, ultimately, a particular publisher.

This is precisely what acquired distinctiveness seeks to protect. It is not the word itself that changes, but the perception of the relevant public.

The judgment therefore reminds us that distinctiveness is dynamic rather than static. It can be created through years of investment, commercial success and consistent consumer exposure.

Looking beyond the register

Another interesting aspect of the judgment is the Court's emphasis on genuine ownership.

Rather than limiting its analysis to registration certificates, it examined who had actually created, developed and commercially exploited the fictional world over many years.

This approach reflects the realities of the gaming industry.

Modern game publishers invest enormous resources in building fictional universes through advertising, merchandising, licensing, streaming platforms, esports, online communities and social media. Those investments often generate recognition extending well beyond what appears on the trade mark register.

The decision demonstrates that, in appropriate circumstances, Turkish courts are prepared to look beyond formal registrations and consider the broader commercial context in which consumer recognition has developed.

Practical takeaways

The judgment should not be interpreted as reducing the importance of trade mark registration. A comprehensive trade mark portfolio remains the strongest and most predictable form of protection.

It does, however, highlight the evidential value of continuous use. Historical advertisements, archived websites, gameplay footage, press coverage and social media activity may ultimately prove decisive in demonstrating how consumers perceive a particular sign.

Equally, businesses should exercise caution when adopting names inspired by successful entertainment properties. Simply adding descriptive expressions such as Gaming, Studio or Interactive may not sufficiently distance a later sign where consumers continue to recognise its dominant element.

Trade mark principles adapt to market reality

The importance of this judgment lies not in recognising that a video game title can function as a trade mark – few practitioners would dispute that proposition.

Its real contribution is more subtle.

It demonstrates that, under the right circumstances, decades of continuous use may transform a relatively commonplace word into a distinctive source identifier deserving trade mark protection in its own right.

More broadly, it reminds us that trade mark law is ultimately concerned with consumer perception. Where consumers no longer perceive a word in its ordinary sense but instead recognise it as identifying a single commercial source, the law may be prepared to protect that association – even where it has been built around a fictional world.

As fictional universes continue to evolve into some of the gaming industry's most valuable commercial assets, decisions such as this illustrate how traditional trade mark principles are adapting to the realities of modern entertainment brands.

Yasemin Aktas is a Partner of ABION in Istanbul and a member of the MARQUES Dispute Resolution Team. She represented the plaintiff in the case discussed

The revised EUIPO Boards of Appeal Rules of Procedure (BoA-RoP) entered into force on 1 July 2026.

The revisions include updates to existing provisions and the introduction of several new provisions for appeal proceedings concerning GIs for craft and industrial products (CIGIs).

New provisions for appeal proceedings concerning CIGIs

New provisions have been introduced for appeal proceedings concerning CIGIs.

These include provisions on the participation of Member States in GI appeal proceedings, consultation of the Advisory Board, the integration of the GIportal, exceptions to the requirement of mandatory professional representation for non-EEA parties in GI appeal proceedings, and language and notification rules for cross appeals involving Member States or their single points of contact.

Joint extension requests and joint suspension requests

As regards joint extension requests (Article 3(6) BoA-RoP) and joint suspension requests (Article 44(5) BoA-RoP), the practice of the BoA is now aligned with the Office’s first-instance practice.

For joint extension requests, the Registrar is empowered to grant more than only six months of extension. For joint suspension requests, the first suspension shall be granted by default for six months.

Any subsequent joint suspension request shall be granted for 18 months (or for the remaining period up to a maximum of two years per instance), regardless of the period requested by the parties, but with the possibility of opting out unilaterally.

Suspension due to mediation

In cases where a time limit was interrupted because of mediation, it shall continue as from the day on which the proceedings are resumed, in accordance with Article 170(5) EUTMR.

Remaining time limits do not restart when the appeal proceedings are resumed (Article 44(10) BoA-RoP).

Cases in which all earlier rights have ceased to exist

Article 42(1)(a) BoA-RoP has been deleted and new Article 42 bis BoA-RoP has been introduced.

According to this, in cases where all the earlier rights on which an opposition or an application for a declaration of invalidity is based have ceased to exist, the BoA shall (a) reject the opposition or the application for a declaration of invalidity as unfounded and (b) order the opponent or invalidity applicant to bear the costs of the appeal and the underlying proceedings pursuant to Article 109(1) EUTMR.

Order on costs

The BoA shall not issue an order on costs provided that (i) a joint statement by both parties is submitted to the BoA confirming the parties’ agreement on costs, or (ii) evidence of the parties’ agreement on costs is submitted by one party.

Where only a unilateral statement by a party is submitted alleging an agreement on costs, but without submitting evidence of this agreement, the Board shall issue an order on costs ex officio.

This means that if only one party alleges – without proof – that there is an agreement on costs, the BoA shall no longer (i) ask the other party to confirm the alleged agreement on costs or (ii) ask for proof of the alleged agreement.

More information

The amendments were adopted by the BoA Presidium on 10 June 2026, following a public consultation with stakeholders, including MARQUES.

Based on the feedback received from the User Associations, the BoA Presidium decided to maintain the separate document requirements in Articles 35(1), 36(1) and 38(1) BoA-RoP.

The revised Rules of Procedure are available on the EUIPO website. The revised Rules will be translated into all Office working languages.

This summary is based on information sent to MARQUES on behalf of the President of the Boards of Appeal.

WIPO has announced that Jersey will be an independent designation under the Madrid System from 1 August 2026.

Jersey is an autonomous British Crown Dependency and is the largest of the Channel Islands, situated off the north-west coast of France. It has a population of just over 100,000 and its main industries include financial services, agriculture and tourism.

Up to now, designating the UK in an international trademark application or subsequent designation automatically extended protection to Jersey.

However, from 1 August, it will be necessary to select Jersey as a separate designation when filing a new application, a subsequent designation or a renewal. Fee amounts will be published on the Madrid System individual fees page when they are available.

WIPO points out that, when designating Jersey, applicants must declare that they intend to use the trade mark, or permit its use, for the listed goods and services. The declaration will be built into relevant forms.

From the same date, Jersey will have its own office or origin, the Jersey Registrar of IP, where Jersey-based applicants will file international applications.

Existing registrations

For registrations designating the UK and recorded before 1 August, WIPO will automatically record a Jersey designation. From that point, the UK and Jersey designations will operate independently.

If the UK refusal period has not yet expired, WIPO will only record a Jersey designation once the UK issues a statement of grant of protection or a final decision granting total or partial protection. If the registration is refused or invalidated in the UK, WIPO will not record a designation for Jersey.

More information about the Madrid System is available on WIPO’s dedicated page.

EUIPO will consolidate its online filing tools on 1 July to create a single, clear filing experience.

As part of the update, the Easy Filing forms will be integrated into the standard online filing process.

In an announcement, EUIPO stated: “The change aims to simplify navigation and reduce duplication between tools, making it easier for users to identify the appropriate filing option and complete their applications. The filing process itself remains unchanged. Applicants will continue to submit trade mark and design applications through the EUIPO website using the standard online forms. Fast Track examination remains possible if applications comply with the required conditions.”

EUIPO will continue to offer tools such as Early TM Screening, allowing trade mark applicants to carry out an initial pre-assessment before submitting an application.

In preparation for the update, information and guidance on the EUIPO website will be updated. Further support is available through EUIPO Online, the help pages and user assistance services.

The Early Bird deadline for booking for the MARQUES Annual Conference is Friday 26 June.

This year’s Annual Conference takes place Lisbon, Portugal from 22 to 25 September. MARQUES members who wish to attend are strongly recommended to register early as places are filling up fast.

At the time of writing, 670 people form 67 countries have already registered.

You can find out more about the Conference and book your place on the MARQUES website here. The Early Bird full residential rate is €3,400 for MARQUES members and €4,250 for non-members.

Conference theme and programme

The theme of the Annual Conference is “The Exciting Evolution of Trade Marks” and the panel sessions will focus on how trade marks are evolving in exciting ways as businesses explore new ways of using brands and other IP assets to build trust with consumers.

The Annual Conference will feature plenary sessions on topics including:

• The fine line between fame and genericism
• Innovative strategies to unlock the value of IP
• The role of regulation beyond trade marks
• The intersection of geographical indications, trade marks and international trade
• Beyond greenwashing: the new Digital Product Passport

It will also include updates from EUIPO and the annual review of CJEU and EU General Court case law.

Interactive workshops at this year's Annual Conference presented by the MARQUES Teams will cover:

• Amicus curiae submissions
• Anticounterfeiting at trade fairs
• Protecting voice, image and identity
• AI and marketing
• Improving the UDRP
• EU design developments

Social programme and hotels

The social programme includes an informal Welcome Reception on 22 September, Cultural Evening at SUD Lisboa on 23 September and Gala Dinner Evening on 24 September.

The main plenary sessions will be held at the Epic Sana while the workshops will take place at the nearby Dom Pedro. Accommodation is available at both these hotels, as well as the InterContinental.

You can choose your hotel when booking (subject to availability). Special hotel rates have also been negotiated for delegates wishing to extend their stay either before or after the Annual Conference.

Modular participation is also available for anyone who wishes to source their own accommodation or who lives locally.

WIPO has announced that representatives can now submit “Appoint/replace representative” requests directly from the “Find and monitor” tab in eMadrid.

This enhancement, made in response to user demand, is designed to make it easier to take over management of international trademark registrations.

Benefits include: no need to request access rights to the international trademark registrations first; manage multiple international registrations in a single request; and holders are automatically prompted to authorise requests digitally.

Note that there must be a holder email address on record for the registrations. Requests can be submitted for multiple registrations if they all have the same on-record email address.

Read more about this new feature, including instructions on how it works, on WIPO’s website here.

On 1 April 2025, the Trademarks Office at the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (TMO) published practice notices governing case management, confidentiality orders and cost awards (the triple-Cs) that govern all proceedings that it oversees, including oppositions and cancellation proceedings.

L Vivienne Stern and Sanjukta Tole explain the practice notices.

Case management

The TMO has introduced rules allowing case management governing both opposition and non-use cancellation proceedings that aim to create productive and cost-effective procedural solutions, particularly for exceptional cases.

Therefore, the TMO now has the power to give any direction or make any order to manage its proceedings, particularly to hear related files together or consecutively, convening a conference call with the parties to address scheduling and conduct of upcoming hearings, and managing uncooperative behaviour that may hinder a proceeding.

A request for case management can be made and the TMO will advise if it is necessary based on, inter alia, whether substantial delay has occurred or will occur, how complex the proceedings are, the number of related files and whether the parties are represented.

Three situations are identified by the TMO as circumstances that could warrant case management: divisional applications in oppositions, corrections to protocol applications, and proceedings in which an order has been made by the TMO that the evidence be kept confidential.

In contrast, the TMO is unlikely to use its case management powers in opposition proceedings to grant amendments or strike all or parts of parties’ pleadings, or to grant extensions of time where such a request has been refused.

Confidentiality orders

All documents filed in trade mark proceedings before the TMO are de facto available to the public pursuant to the open court principle. In recent years, the TMO has made such documents available online.

Now, in exceptional circumstances, the TMO may order that information contained in affidavit evidence filed by any party to a proceeding remain confidential upon request of the party providing the information.

Prior to submitting the evidence in a proceeding, a party may request that a portion or all of the evidence that they intend to submit be kept confidential. However, the TMO will not grant requests to keep any pleading or part thereof confidential as such orders may only apply to evidence filed in proceedings before the TMO pursuant to statute.

The Supreme Court of Canada has specified that a person requesting a confidentiality order must demonstrate that:

1. The open court principle poses a serious risk to an important public interest;
2. The order sought is necessary to prevent this serious risk to the identified interest because reasonable alternative measures will not prevent this risk; and
3. As a matter of proportionality, the benefits of the order outweigh its negative effects.

The TMO has adopted this test to evaluate requests for confidentiality orders in proceedings it oversees. If an order is issued, the TMO will set out the manner of serving and submitting confidential information by the party making the request.

A confidentiality order may be revoked or amended by the TMO, including the designation of additional information as confidential. Where it is necessary to refer to information that has been designated “confidential” in a ruling or decision, the TMO will issue a public version which has been redacted and a confidential version that contains the full decision.

Cost awards

In exceptional circumstances and upon request, the TMO may award costs against a party to a proceeding, regardless of whether the party is successful.

Cost awards are meant to encourage parties to conduct themselves efficiently. Therefore, any request for costs must detail the reasons for the request and the circumstances for which costs are sought. The TMO may award costs in the following non-exhaustive circumstances:

1. Against an applicant where a trade mark application is refused by the TMO on the grounds that it was submitted in bad faith for certain goods or services;
2. Where a party files a divisional application after the original application has been advertised, and the costs relate to that specific divisional application;
3. Where a party withdraws its attendance at a hearing less than 14 days before the scheduled date of that hearing; or
4. Where a party’s unreasonable conduct causes undue delays or expenses in the proceeding.

The non-requesting party is given the opportunity to respond to a claim for costs by the TMO.

The TMO will provide reasons for its decision on any cost awards and directions thereto. A schedule for costs awards also came into force on 1 April 2025, highlighting the principle that parties must have knowledge of the law before acting.

Costs will not be awarded where the grounds to claim costs occurred prior to 1 April 2025. This will have only a short-term effect as most proceedings commenced prior to 1 April 2025 will conclude soon if they have not done so already.

L Vivienne Stern is an Associate and Sanjukta Tole is a Partner with Dickinson Wright LLP in Canada. Sanjukta is a member of the MARQUES International Trade Mark Law and Practice Team