NEWSLETTER-2020-metin

380 NEWSLETTER 2020 the following three issues are examined by the Office in detail. These are i) the trademark application is identical or similar to an earlier trademark ii) the goods/services within the scope of the application are identical or similar to the goods/services of the earlier trademark, and iii) there is a possibility of association, including confusion among the consumers, due to these similarities. In addition, the Office evaluates different factors interdependently, such as the recognition and distinc- tiveness of the earlier trademark, the level of attention of the average consumer, and the conditions specific to the relevant sector. In the similarity assessment, all relationships and features be- tween goods and services, such as addressing similar consumer environment, meeting similar needs, having a raw material-product relationship and common distribution channels, being sold in the same departments, and having similar target audience, should be taken into account. When evaluating whether trademarks are similar, a holistic evaluation should be made to see whether the trademarks are visually, aurally and conceptually similar. In this context, the generic elements the trademarks contain should be left out of the evaluation. If there is a similarity among the trademarks that may be per- ceived visually, this similarity is accepted as visual similarity 1 . For example, although the word elements of the “Helvacı Dede + device” trademark, whose invalidation was requested from the Court of Cassa- tion, and the registered trademarks, “Grandfather device” and “KREM HELVA + Grandfather device,” are different, the Court of Cassation decided to invalidate the “Helvacı Dede + device” trademark since there is a visual similarity originating from the “old man shape.” 2 1 Çolak, Uğur : “Türk Marka Hukuku”, 4th ed., 2018, p. 226. 2 CC Assembly of Civil Chambers, E. 2012/111569, K. 2013/750, 22.05.2013.