Hermes V Hermes: Turkey Bookshop Marks Win In Copyright Fight
Turkish bookseller Umit Nar has won a David v Goliath case to use the name Hermes against a French luxury giant
MERT CAKIR
Text size
A bookseller in Turkey notched a victory over a French luxury house in a copyright battle to be able to call itself Hermes, the shop’s lawyer said Tuesday, hailing an infrequent win against a major brand.
An Ankara court ruling partially voided a decision by TurkPatent, Turkey’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 Umit Nar, whose shop is in the western city of Izmir, told AFP.
The shopkeeper pointed out that the deity is closely linked to the ancient history of Smyrna — Izmir’s old name — on the Aegaen coast, where many Greek myths are set.
Hermes fashion house did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The court has not yet made its reasoning public, said the bookseller’s lawyer, Hilmi Gullu, who added that the ruling was a “victory.”
“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,” Gullu said.
The case stretches back to December 2021, when the Turkish retailer sought to register a trademark for his 15-year-old bookshop.
A representative for the French company initiated legal proceedings against TurkPatent and took the case to court to ban the retailer from using “Hermes” in its brand name and any marketing materials.
Hermes fashion house emphasised the “similarity and risk of confusion” between the two names despite the different business sectors, arguing it is also active in publishing through its magazine.
“They would’ve been right if our sectors were similar, but that’s absolutely not the case,” said Nar.
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.
