Hermes v Hermes: Turkey bookshop marks win in copyright fight

A bookseller in Turkey has notched a victory over a French luxury house in a copyright battle, allowing the bookseller to continue using the name "Hermes" for its shop. The bookseller's lawyer hailed this as an infrequent win against a major brand.

An Ankara court ruling partially overturned a decision by TurkPatent, Turkey's intellectual property authority, that had previously prevented any brand other than Hermes Paris from using the name Hermes.

Umit Nar, the bookseller whose shop is located in the western city of Izmir, stated: "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." Nar pointed out that the deity Hermes is closely linked to the ancient history of Smyrna - the old name for Izmir - on the Aegean coast, where many Greek myths are set.

The Hermes fashion house did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling.

The bookseller's lawyer, Hilmi Gullu, said the court has not yet made its reasoning public, but he described the ruling as a "victory." Gullu stated, "Multinational firms like Hermes have an aggressive trademark registration policy, beyond their own industries. This verdict paves the way for saying no to these practices."

The case dates back to December 2021, when the Turkish retailer sought to register a trademark for his 15-year-old bookshop. A representative for the French Hermes company then initiated legal proceedings against TurkPatent and took the case to court, attempting to ban the retailer from using "Hermes" in its brand name and marketing materials.

Hermes fashion house had argued that there was "similarity and risk of confusion" between the two names, despite the different business sectors, claiming it is also active in publishing through its magazine. However, Nar said, "They would've been right if our sectors were similar, but that's absolutely not the case."

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," according to the lawyer.

Nar expressed hope that "this verdict will help set a precedent for cultural heritage and multinational firms."