Earlier this year, I brought to you an absolute bonkers trademark lawsuit filed in Turkey by Hermes, the luxury brand, against Hermes Sahaf, an itty bitty bookstore. There was never a reason to file this lawsuit, but it’s an especially bad PR look for a massive company like Hermes to be going after an independent bookstore. In its suit, Hermes claimed it was doing so because it too is a publisher, as it relates to some luxury accessories magazine it puts out. But that still doesn’t get you into the same marketplace as a bookstore.
Much to my surprise, the Turkish intellectual property office sided with Hermes independent of the lawsuit, denying Hermes Sahaf’s attempt to trademark its own name. That office said that only Hermes could use the name of the greek god, paying no attention to the difference in market designators.
Now, fortunately, the court hearing the lawsuit has ruled in the opposite, finding for Hermes Sahaf and allowing the store to keep its name.
An Ankara court ruling partially voided a decision by TürkPatent, Türkiye’s intellectual property authority, that prevented any brand other than Hermes Paris from using the name Hermes.
“Hermes is a god in Greek mythology who belongs to the cultural heritage of humanity. He should not be owned by a company. This is an important decision in that sense,” the bookseller Ümit Nar, whose shop is in the western city of İzmir, told AFP.
The source material here is a bit hard to navigate, given that I am by no means an expert in Turkish trademark law. The court has apparently issued this ruling without making its reasoning public. Still, Nar’s free to keep his shop’s name. What is unclear is whether he is now clear to pursue the trademark for his shop that he wanted in the first place.
It may be that the appeal he plans to file on the ruling is designed to allow him to do exactly that.
The book dealer will still appeal the decision, as “the court has not ruled on the risk of confusion between the two brands in terms of audience and general impression,” the lawyer said.
“I hope that this verdict will help set a precedent for cultural heritage and multinational firms,” Nar said.
Regardless of the motivation for the appeal, that last goal would certainly be a good one. Or, at the very least, maybe these multinational firms could simply not feel the need to bully a small bookshop.
