Home About Us Services Awards Team Insights Career Contact Us TÜRKÇEENGLISH Devin Law & IP — Istanbul
← All Insights
CategoryTrademark
Published26 February 2026
Authors
Uğurcan TekinPartner
Alican TekinPartner
Mehmet Kerem KüçükTrademark & Patent Specialist

New Rules on the Classification of Goods and Services in Trademark Applications

The update work conducted by the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (TÜRKPATENT) with a view to achieving alignment with the international classification of goods and services taken as the basis in trademark applications (the Nice Agreement) has been completed. The Communiqué on the Classification of Goods and Services Relating to Trademark Applications (TÜRKPATENT: 2026/2) was published in the Official Gazette dated 26 February 2026 and numbered 33180, entering into force upon publication.

By means of the said regulation, the former Communiqué dated 20 December 2024 (2024/2) has been repealed; in line with technological developments and sectoral requirements, the classes of certain goods have been changed and new definitions have been added to the list.

Principal Changes in the Classification List

An examination of the Goods and Services Classification List annexed to the new Communiqué reveals critical changes that will directly affect registration strategies in practice.

Class and sub-class allocation decides the real scope of a registration.

The Class Distinction Between Spectacles and Protective Equipment

The goods 'spectacles, sunglasses, lenses and their boxes, cases, parts and accessories', which appeared in Class 9 in the former list, have been moved by the new Communiqué to Class 10, in which medical devices and instruments are located.

By contrast, 'swimming goggles' and 'protective goggles', together with '3D glasses' newly added to the list, continue to remain in Class 9. This distinction is of great importance for the optical sector in avoiding errors in class selection.

Class assignment determines the boundaries of protection — and the outcome of future similarity examinations.

Other Significant Class Transitions

  • Clothing and heating technologies — 'electrically heated socks', formerly located in Class 11 (heating apparatus), have been placed by the new regulation directly in Class 25, the class of garments.
  • Firefighting vehicles — 'vehicles for fire extinguishing purposes', classified in Class 9, have had their scope broadened in the new list under the definition 'firefighting vehicles for use on land, at sea and in the air' and have been moved to Class 12, in which vehicles are located.
  • Sanitary installation fittings — 'attachments for taps', which appeared in Class 21 in the former list, will now be classified in Class 11 together with sanitary installation products.
  • Brake linings — the goods 'linings' formerly located in Class 7 have been revised as 'brake linings other than for land vehicles'. In addition, 'clutch linings for machines and engines other than for land vehicles' has been added to Class 7, rendering the entry more specific.
  • Clutch linings for land vehicles — goods specific to land vehicles have been brought together and organised, and 'clutch linings for land vehicles' has been added to Class 12.
  • Spray nozzles for hoses — 'spray nozzles for hoses' located in Class 21 has been moved to Class 17, so that hose-related goods are located together.
  • Plant watering containers and their heads, strainers and spray nozzles — the relevant group of goods has been added within Class 21.
  • Organisation and administration services for symposia, conferences, congresses and seminars — although these services are located in Class 41, they have been appended to the continuation of education and training services. This matter is of importance in terms of the assessment of class-based similarity between trademarks.
“A reassignment between classes is not a formality: it determines the scope of protection, the outcome of similarity examinations and the strength of future oppositions.”

Assessment and Points Requiring Attention in Practice

An examination of the changes made shows that TÜRKPATENT is directing goods toward classes more consistent with functional and sectoral realities. This is of critical importance in ensuring that trademark applications are not refused and that the legal certainty of the scope of protection is secured.

Companies and undertakings operating in the optical, textile and technology sectors in particular must take these changes to the goods list into account in their new applications. The appending of symposium, conference and congress organisation services to education and training services within Class 41 is likewise significant, since class-based similarity assessments in opposition proceedings may be affected.

In conclusion, as of 26 February 2026 it is mandatory that the list annexed to Communiqué No. 2026/2 be taken as the basis in all new applications. Revising existing trademark portfolios and planned applications in accordance with these new classes is important in preventing potential deficiency notifications and losses of rights.

Practical Steps for Portfolio Holders

  • Review pending applications against the amended list before the examination stage, so that any deficiency can be corrected proactively
  • Recalibrate watch services and clearance searches to the new class assignments, since monitoring configured to the former list may miss relevant filings
  • Reassess opposition and infringement strategies built on the former classification, particularly where the goods in issue have migrated between classes
  • For granted registrations, note that the Communiqué does not alter the scope of protection retrospectively — but the current list will govern similarity assessments and the framing of new applications
  • Coordinate international filings so that the Turkish class assignment is consistent with the classification adopted before EUIPO and WIPO, avoiding divergence within the same portfolio

Conclusion

Classification is frequently treated as an administrative formality; in practice it defines the boundaries of the right. Where a good migrates to a different class, applications filed under the former list may leave gaps in coverage, and enforcement strategies built on the earlier classification may require revision. Portfolio holders in the affected sectors should conduct that review now rather than at the point at which a deficiency notification or an adverse similarity assessment makes it unavoidable.

Related practice areaIndustrial Property Law→

Related reading

TrademarkOpinions and Criticisms on the Practical Application of Article 6/3 of the Industrial Property Code14 February 2026TrademarkTrademark Infringement Through Internet Domain Names and the Litigation Process14 February 2026TrademarkThe Court of Cassation’s Approach to Trademark Registrations with a High Degree of Genericness14 February 2026