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