As businesses continue to expand across borders, well-known trade marks remain critical assets in maintaining brand recognition and commercial value in international markets. These marks often benefit from enhanced protection due to their strong market presence, but navigating trade mark systems across jurisdictions can be challenging. Differences in recognition standards, protection procedures, and enforcement scope may limit the effectiveness of international trade mark strategies.
This article examines the global protection landscape for well-known and defensive trade marks, drawing on the legal frameworks established by the Paris Convention and the TRIPS Agreement. Through case studies from Turkey, the Philippines, and Australia, we explore practical identification and protection mechanisms, offering insights for companies seeking to strengthen their trade mark portfolios beyond their home markets.
Protection of unregistered well-known trade marks: The concept of well-known trade mark protection was first introduced in 1883 by the Paris Convention,[1] and Article 6bis provides that the owner of an unregistered well-known trade mark has the right to prohibit others from using a confusing trade mark on identical or similar goods.
Extension of cross-class protection: Article 16 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) [2] further advances the protection of well-known trade marks, extending the scope of protection of well-known trade marks from goods to services, and from single-class protection to cross-class protection for registered well-known trade marks.
From the initial framework of the Paris Convention to the globalization rules of TRIPS, the core objective has always been to balance the interests of trade mark owners with fair competition in the market. In the future, with the deepening of regional economic integration and digital trade, it is believed that the system of well-known trade marks will become more user-friendly.
Traditionally, well-known trade marks have been determined on a case-by-case basis through administrative or judicial procedures in trade mark ownership or infringement disputes. However, some countries (e.g., Turkey and the Philippines) allow direct administrative applications for recognition, providing a more efficient pre-protection mechanism for well-known trade marks.
In addition, some countries and regions (such as Australia, Japan, Hong Kong, China, Taiwan Province, etc.) allow trade mark owners to directly apply for defensive trade marks on other related products and services based on their own well-known trade marks. This allowance achieves the purpose of trade mark collapse protection, and its significance is almost similar to that of well-known trade marks.
This article aims to provide inspiration for trade mark owners on Turkey and the Philippines, two nations where one can directly apply for recognition of well-known trade marks, and Australia, where one can apply for defensive trade marks.
On top of the administrative and judicial recognition of well-known trade marks that are common in China, Turkey and the Philippines are among the few countries where it is possible to apply directly to the Patent and Trademark Office for recognition of well-known trade marks. The rules for recognising well-known trade marks in the Philippines took effect in April 2025. Such recognition is undoubtedly the most efficient way to identify well-known trade marks, and it may also be the most effective way to protect them.
To apply for recognition of a well-known trade mark in Turkey, the applicant can apply for registration with the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office. However, the trade mark must meet the requirements of the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office for recognition as a well-known trade mark, and the examination time is typically around 12-24 months to date. In Turkey, the data on applications for recognition of well-known trade marks are available on the official public website. At present, there are 1683 known trade marks in the Turkish database, in which the well-known trade mark application marked ‘Kabul Edildi’ has been granted. Including PEPSI, CNN, HSBC, Red Bull, Xiaomi, Columbia, eBay, MAC and other well-known brands at home and abroad have been successfully recognized as well-known trade marks in Turkey.
On February 5, 2020, the Supreme Court of Turkey issued a ruling stating that, under current law, the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office does not have the authority to register a well-known trade mark application. Instead, the well-known status of a trade mark must be determined on a case-by-case basis. This means that the right to apply for a well-known trade mark may not be able to continue to obtain relief at the court stage after the final rejection by the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office. However, so far, the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office still exercises the relevant powers [3], and the well-known trade mark registration system will still be included in the published fees in 2025[4]. At present, it has not affected the application and recognition method of well-known trade marks.
Relevant evidence that the mark is well-known in its country of origin, other contracting states to the Paris Convention, and in Turkey, and in particular in the last 5 years in its country of origin and in Turkey, include:
1) a list of registered trade marks worldwide;
2) Copies of trade mark registration certificates from about 10 countries;
3) Relevant documents and information about the applicant's company history and business;
4) The company's annual sales and turnover;
5) Excerpts from press publications about the trade mark;
6) Advertising, documents showing the company's turnover, advertising expenditures and related expenses on the trade mark;
7) Prior well-known trade mark recognition rulings, if any;
8) Honours received by the applicant or trade mark.
A well-known trade mark that has been successfully recognized realizes the protection of goods and services to a certain extent, and the protection of a well-known trade mark has no specific term and does not need to be renewed.
The Philippines will officially implement the Well-Known trade marks Ordinance on April 28, 2025, introducing a unilateral, independent procedure for the recognition of well-known trade marks, which differs from the previous method of recognition through legal proceedings between the two parties, such as opposition and cancellation. At the same time, the Philippines will establish a register of well-known trade marks, which aims to further strengthen the protection of well-known trade marks.
According to the regulations of the Well-known trade marks Ordinance, the recognition of a well-known trade mark should take into account the perception of the relevant public rather than the general public, and the popularity of the trade mark in the Philippines should also be considered. At a minimum, the criteria for evaluating a well-known trade mark should include:
In addition to the minimum criteria for recognition (1-4 above), criteria such as the scope of global trade mark registration, the exclusivity of global trade mark registration, the scope of global use, the exclusivity of global use, the commercial value of the trade mark, and the successful record of trade mark rights protection should also be considered.
In Australia, unlike Turkey and the Philippines, while it also follows the principles of the Paris Convention for the protection of well-known trade marks, in relevant administrative or judicial cases the right holder can also claim that its trade mark is well-known in order to obtain recognition by administrative or judicial precedents. However, for those trade mark owners who already have a certain reputation and influence in Australia, it is undoubtedly a more desirable strategy to apply for a defensive mark registration to achieve broader protection and achieve an effect comparable to that of a well-known trade mark. Defensive trade marks can be found on the official public website. Currently, there are a total of 491 pending and registered defensive marks in the official Australian database, of which 354 have been registered. For example, brands such as Coca-Cola, FACEBOOK, Canon, INTEL, LG, SHELL, NIKE have all been registered as defensive trade marks in Australia.
Section 185 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 provides for defensive marks: ‘A trade mark registrant may apply for registration of a defensive mark in all or any other goods or services if the registered mark is used in all or in large quantities on all or any of the goods or services for which it is registered, and if the use of the mark in relation to other goods or services is likely to cause consumers to believe that there is a connection between those other goods or services and the trade mark registrant.’
There is no conflict between a defensive trade mark application and an identical ordinary trade mark application under the same applicant's name, and both can enjoy the corresponding trade mark rights in Australia at the same time. Also, the registration of a defensive mark is not limited to applications in different classes other than the basic mark, but can also be applied for in the same class as the basic mark.
1) Evidentiary materials on the reputation of the basic trade mark.
For example, the duration and scope of use of the basic mark, specifying the goods and services used in which the basic mark, the advertising method, advertising expenditure and advertising samples of the basic mark, etc.;
2) Grounds for applying for a defensive mark.
For example, why a potential consumer might think that the use of the mark on different goods or services would be associated with the applicant, and explain the nature of such a ‘possible connection’;
3) a sworn statement or professional market research report from a member of the same industry (the industry in which the defensive mark is sought) to further prove the connection;
4) a list of identical and similar trade marks registered under its name, including registered goods and services.
Australian defensive marks offer cross-class protection for non-similar goods or services, thereby expanding the scope of trade mark rights and ultimately enhancing the protection of well-known trade marks. A registered defensive trade mark cannot be revoked on the basis that the trade mark has not been used for three years (it can prevent others from ‘free-riding’ in the non-core class, but there is no need to worry about not using it and being ‘withdrawn’), provided that the basic mark is used on the designated item. The validity period of a defensive mark is the same as that of an ordinary mark, which is renewed every 10 years from the filing date.
Defensive trade mark registration realizes cross-class protection for non-similar goods and services, and can achieve the purpose of well-known trade mark protection to a certain extent. However, in practice, it is inappropriate to treat a defensive trade mark simply as a way to identify a well-known trade mark.
The overseas protection of well-known trade marks has gone beyond mere legal issues and has become a core component of business's globalization strategy. In the current international trade environment, Chinese enterprises face a dual challenge for their brands to expand globally: on the one hand, they must navigate the diverse national legal systems , and on the other, they must protect themselves against the increasingly complex risks of trade mark squatting and infringement. Through a comparative study of the direct recognition systems of Turkey and the Philippines and the defensive trade mark system of Australia, this paper reveals several key dimensions of overseas protection of well-known trade marks:
First, the depth of corporate knowledge determines the effectiveness of protection. Enterprises must go beyond a principled understanding of international conventions and grasp the specific implementation rules of the target country's laws. For example, Turkey's special practice of maintaining administrative recognition despite judicial disputes, as well as the newly created registry system in the Philippines, all require businesses to maintain continuous tracking, professional research, and sound judgement.
Second, the systematic nature of evidence preparation is related to the success or failure of the determination. From the global proof of registration required by Turkey, to the market share data highlighted by the Philippines, to the consumer confusion analysis that Australia is concerned about, there are commonalities and differences in the evidentiary requirements across countries. Rightsholders should establish a regular evidence collection mechanism rather than responding ad hoc.
Thirdly, the choice of protection strategy needs to be tailor-made. The efficiency of the direct recognition system is prioritized, and the stability of the defensive trade mark system is outstanding. Enterprises should choose the most suitable protection path based on their own development stage, industry characteristics and target market, and adopt a combination strategy if necessary.
Finally, dynamic maintenance is the best long-term guarantee to date. Well-known trade mark protection is not a one-time job, and the renewal system in the Philippines and the basic trade mark use requirements in Australia all emphasize the importance of continuous maintenance. Enterprises need to establish a full life cycle management system including monitoring, rights protection, renewal and other links.
Looking ahead, with the in-depth development of the digital economy and the rise of emerging markets, the protection of well-known trade marks will face more diversified challenges. Chinese enterprises should incorporate their trade mark strategy into the overall planning of their global layout, and build a systematic, comprehensive and dynamic overseas well-known trade mark protection system through professional team building, deepening system research and continuous investment of resources, so as to escort the internationalization of their brands. This is not only related to the interests of individual businesses, but also an important means of enhancing the global competitiveness of Chinese brands.
References:
[1] Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property
[2] Full text of the TRIPS Agreement (amended on January 23, 2017, Chinese)
[3] Update on the Well-known trade mark Registry Debate in Türkiye
[4] https://www.turkpatent.gov.tr/en/trade mark-fees
Authors: Amanda Yang, Xiaotong Men, Vanessa Wang