Turkey Trademark Docketing: 9 Critical Türkpatent Dates and the Two-Month Clocks That Void a Mark

A US trademark docket is anchored to one date: the certificate issues, and the declaration of use, incontestability and renewal are all computed from it. Turkey trademark docketing needs three. The ten-year term runs from the application date, the five-year non-use clock runs from registration, and a third window runs from the date Türkpatent served your Turkish agent — because under Article 160(4) of Industrial Property Code No. 6769, service on the agent is service on you. Get those anchors wrong and the six-month grace period is not wide enough to absorb the error.

Why Turkey Trademark Docketing Fails on the Service Date, Not the Deadline

Most country guides for Türkiye publish the same four facts: ten-year term, six-month renewal window, six-month grace period, two-month opposition. Those facts are correct and they are not where portfolios are lost.

Turkish practice is built on a representation rule with a quiet procedural edge. Under Article 160(3) of Industrial Property Code No. 6769, a holder whose domicile is abroad may only be represented before the Office by a registered Turkish trademark or patent attorney — and any operation conducted without one is deemed void. Article 160(4) then adds the sting: once an attorney is appointed, “the notification made to the attorney shall be deemed as made to the principal.”

Read those two sentences together and a docketing rule falls out. Every two-month clock in Turkish trademark practice — opposition, Board appeal, registration fee, court appeal — starts running on the day Türkpatent serves your agent. The date the instructing firm or the brand owner actually read the report has no legal standing at all.

A docket that stores “date reported to us” as the trigger is therefore not merely imprecise. It is systematically late by whatever the reporting lag happens to be that week. On a two-month clock with no extension available, a ten-day lag consumes a sixth of the period before anyone has opened the file.

That is the structural problem this guide is written around. The sections below set out nine dates a Turkish matter needs, each tied to the Article that creates it, and each with the anchor stated explicitly — because in Türkiye the anchors are not all the same date.

The Term Türkpatent Measures: 10 Years From the Application Date

Trademarks in Türkiye are administered by the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (Türkpatent). Article 23(1) sets the term: “The term of protection for registered trademark is ten years from the date of application. This term shall be renewed for periods of ten years.”

The anchor is the application date. Not the registration date, not the publication date, not the certificate date. This is the single most common import error on a US-built docket, because US maintenance arithmetic is anchored to registration from end to end.

The size of the error is the length of prosecution. A Turkish application that passes examination unopposed is commonly registered within roughly eight to twelve months of filing; an opposed one takes materially longer. A docket that stores “ten years from registration” is therefore late by eight months to several years — far outside any grace period.

Türkiye is not alone in anchoring on filing. The EUTM term runs from the filing date too, which is why a European portfolio built on the same assumption travels well; see our EU trademark docketing deadlines breakdown for the same distinction at the EUIPO. The trap is mixing the two families in one database field.

Store the application date as a first-class field on every Turkish record, and compute expiry from it. Store the registration date separately — you will need it, but for a different clock entirely.

This is the point at which Turkey trademark docketing most often breaks on import, and the reason is mundane rather than legal: the field a US-configured system populates by default, and the one its renewal rule reads, is the registration date. The data migrates cleanly and the arithmetic is wrong from the first record.

The Renewal Window Opens Exactly Six Months Out — and Not Before

Article 23(2) is more prescriptive than most summaries suggest. The renewal request “needs to be made by the trademark proprietor within six months before the expiry of the protection date and the information regarding the payment of the fee needs to be submitted to the Office within the same period.”

Three consequences for a docket:

• There is no early renewal. The window opens six months before expiry. A reminder that fires at twelve months produces an instruction nobody can act on, and a file that gets closed as “handled” while the real window is still shut.
• Filing is not the deliverable; paid-and-evidenced is. The request and the fee-payment information are separate obligations with the same deadline. A renewal request sitting on file with the fee unevidenced has not met Article 23(2).
• The confirmation is the only closure event. Because payment information must reach the Office, the docket entry should close on a recorded Office confirmation, not on an instruction letter.

If the window is missed, Article 23(2) permits the renewal “within six months after the expiry of the protection date, provided that an additional fee is paid.” That is a twelve-month envelope in total: six months before expiry, six months after.

Article 23(5) settles what the renewal buys: it “shall take effect from the day following the date on which the previous registration expires.” A late renewal filed in the grace period does not shorten the next term or create a gap — the chain of protection is continuous. The term keeps running from the original application anniversary.

Turkey trademark docketing consequently needs a window-open date as well as a due date. Most systems model only the deadline, which means they prompt at the wrong end of a period that cannot be acted on early and cannot be left to the last week either.

One more field the date alone will not carry. Article 23(3) allows renewal “for a part of the goods or services within the scope of its registration.” Scope can shrink at renewal, which means a Turkish record needs class-level and specification-level detail, not just a next-due date. A portfolio renewed narrowly three cycles ago and docketed as “renewed” may no longer cover the goods the business actually sells.

After the Grace Period There Is No Restoration

This is the part worth being blunt about. Article 28(1)(a) provides that the trademark right terminates on “expiry of term of protection and not renewing the trademark in prescribed time,” and Article 28(2) makes the termination effective “as of the time of occurrence of the reason for termination.”

Code No. 6769 does contain a continuation-of-processes and re-establishment-of-rights mechanism, in Article 107. It sits in the patents book of the Code and is addressed to the patent applicant and the patentee by its own terms. There is no equivalent restoration route written for a lapsed trademark renewal.

So the twelve-month envelope is the whole of it. Once the six-month grace period closes, the practical remedy is to file again — accepting a new application date, a new ten-year term, a fresh examination, a fresh two-month opposition exposure, and the loss of every priority and seniority benefit the original filing carried.

This absolute quality is not unusual in the region, and it is worth docketing the same way wherever it appears. Singapore reaches the same result by a different route, and the Saudi position is stricter still; our Saudi Arabia trademark docketing guide covers a jurisdiction where the grace period is also followed by a re-registration bar.

Treat the final day of the Turkish grace period as a hard stop in the system, with an escalation rather than a reminder attached to it. There is nothing behind it.

Opposition: Two Months From Bulletin Publication, Grounds and Fee Included

Article 18(1): oppositions on the grounds in Articles 5 or 6 “shall be filed by relevant persons within two months following the publication of the trademark application.” The trigger is publication of the application in the Bulletin, which in Türkiye happens before registration, after the Office has cleared formalities and absolute grounds.

Article 18(2) is where oppositions are actually lost. The opposition must be in writing and with grounds, and “if the grounds for opposition are not submitted to the Office within the period set out in the first paragraph, the opposition shall be deemed not to have been made.” The fee carries the same rule: it “is mandatory that the opposition fee is paid within the period of the opposition and that the information regarding the payment of the fee is submitted to the Office within the same period.”

Three things therefore have to land inside the same two months: the notice, the reasoned grounds, and evidence that the fee was paid. There is no mechanism in Article 18 for filing a placeholder opposition and perfecting it later.

That is a sharper rule than the one a US-trained docketer carries. At the USPTO a notice of opposition is due 30 days from publication, and extensions of time to oppose are routinely available up to a total of 180 days. In Türkiye the period is longer but complete and non-extendable. Our trademark opposition docketing guide sets out the parallel clocks jurisdiction by jurisdiction.

For Turkey trademark docketing that is the difference between a filing task and a drafting project. The entry cannot be a one-line “file opposition” item, because what is due on day 60 is a reasoned pleading with a funded fee, and nothing can be added afterwards.

For a watching programme this changes the internal service level. A hit in the Turkish Bulletin cannot be triaged on a four-week cycle, because the file needs a reasoned pleading and a funded fee before day 60 — and, per Article 160(4), day 1 is the publication date, not the date the watch report was circulated.

The Article 19(2) Proof-of-Use Demand Your Own Registrations Invite

Article 19(2) is the provision that most changes how a Turkish portfolio should be maintained, and it is almost never mentioned in deadline guides.

Where an opposition is filed under Article 6(1), and the mark relied on as the ground for opposition “has been registered for at least five years at the date of application or date of priority of the application for which the opposition is filed,” the applicant may request that the opponent prove genuine use. The opponent must then show genuine use on the goods and services relating to the opposition during the five-year period before the opposed application’s filing or priority date — or a proper reason for not using the mark.

If the opponent cannot do that, Article 19(2) is unambiguous: “opposition shall be refused.” And where use is proven for only some goods or services, the opposition is examined on those alone.

Note what the five-year period is measured against. It is not the date of the opposition and not today. It is the other side’s filing or priority date — a date your own docket does not control and cannot predict.

The docketing consequence runs backwards from the usual direction. On the fifth anniversary of registration, each Turkish registration you own stops being purely an asset and becomes a mark whose enforceability in opposition depends on evidence you may be asked to produce about a window defined by a stranger. The only workable answer is a rolling evidence practice: dated invoices, packaging, advertising and sales data captured continuously per class, not assembled after a demand arrives.

Add a recurring record field for “use evidence last refreshed” on every Turkish registration past its fifth year, and review it on the same cycle as the renewal diary.

The Registration Fee: Two Months, or the Application Is Abolished

Article 22(1) describes registration as the end of a chain of conditions — filed without deficiency or deficiencies remedied, examined and published, no opposition or opposition ultimately rejected, and “all stages have been completed upon submission to the Office of missing documents within the prescribed period, including information demonstrating that registration fee is paid.”

Then the sanction: “In case of failure to deposit the fee concerning registration of the trademark and submitting to the Office the information concerning the payment within the prescribed period, the application shall be abolished.”

In practice Türkpatent notifies the applicant that the application has been allowed and the registration fee is payable, and the period for payment is two months from that notification. The structure mirrors renewal and opposition: the payment and the information evidencing the payment both have to reach the Office inside the window.

This is the clock most exposed to the Article 160(4) service rule, because it is purely inbound. Nothing in your diary predicts the allowance notice. The file sits quiet for months, the notice is served on the Turkish agent, and two months later an application that survived examination and opposition is gone — not refused, abolished, with the filing date and any priority claim gone with it.

So Turkey trademark docketing has to treat inbound agent correspondence as deadline-bearing by default, rather than classifying it on review. There is no safe category of Turkish Office letter that can wait for the weekly post run.

The control is procedural rather than calendrical. Agent correspondence on Turkish files needs same-day docketing with the agent’s service date recorded as the trigger, and allowance notices need a flag that cannot be closed by an instruction alone — only by a receipted payment.

Article 22(2): The Two-Year Clock That Quiets a Defective Registration

Article 22(2) creates a date almost nobody dockets, and it cuts both ways.

A trademark “which has been registered without completion of the stages set out in the first paragraph, shall not be deemed as a registered trademark; its application procedures shall be continued from the incomplete stage and this situation shall be published in the Bulletin.” Where such an application is re-registered, the registration fee is not charged again.

And then: “However, after two years from the registration date, the registration of trademark shall not be affected from incomplete stage.”

So a procedurally defective Turkish registration is vulnerable to being reopened — but only for two years from its registration date. After that the defect no longer touches the registration.

If you are the holder, that is a two-year exposure window worth knowing about during due diligence on an acquired Turkish portfolio. If you are challenging a registration that appears to have issued irregularly, it is a hard two-year deadline on that particular argument. Either way it is a date computed from the registration date, which is a third anchor alongside the filing date and the renewal cycle.

Appeals: Two Months to the Board, Then Two Months to Ankara

Article 20(2) governs the administrative appeal: it “shall be made in written and with grounds to the Office within two months from the notification date of the decision.” The now-familiar completeness rule applies — if grounds are not submitted in time the appeal “shall be deemed not to have been made,” and the fee plus payment information must be in within the appeal period.

Article 20(2) closes with a restriction that has no real US analogue: “After the expiration of the appeal period, the grounds for appeal may not be altered and new grounds may not be added.”

That is a substantive drafting deadline disguised as a filing deadline. The theory of the appeal is fixed at month two and cannot be developed later as the record grows. Docket it as a work deadline with lead time, not a one-line filing task.

Appeals are examined by the Re-examination and Evaluation Board, and under Article 21(4) the Board “shall give the final decision of the Office.” The Code then provides that a legal proceeding may be instituted against those decisions within two months of the notification date of the decision.

Venue is not a choice. Article 156(2) provides that for proceedings against any Office decision, and for proceedings brought against the Office by adversely affected third parties, the competent court “shall be the Ankara Civil Court of Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights.” Istanbul is where much of the commercial activity is; Ankara is where an appeal against Türkpatent is heard.

Two months, then two months, with the grounds frozen at the end of the first. A Turkish refusal needs resourcing on receipt, not on review.

Non-Use Runs From Registration While the Term Runs From Filing

Article 9(1) sets the use requirement: if “within a period of five years following the date of registration, the trademark has not been put to genuine use in Turkey by the trademark proprietor in connection with the goods or services in respect of which it is registered, or if such use has been suspended during an uninterrupted period of five years, the trademark shall be revoked, unless there are proper reasons for non-use.”

The anchor is the date of registration. The term in Article 23(1) is anchored to the date of application. One jurisdiction, two different start dates, and the gap between them is the length of prosecution.

This is why a Turkish record needs both dates stored and neither derived from the other. A docket that keeps only the filing date cannot compute the five-year use vulnerability; a docket that keeps only the registration date cannot compute renewal. Software that exposes a single “key date” per matter will quietly get one of the two wrong.

Turkey trademark docketing is therefore one of the few national practices that genuinely requires two independent anchor dates per record rather than one date and a set of offsets. Jurisdictions that measure everything from a single event tolerate a simpler data model; Türkiye does not.

Article 9(2) widens what counts as use: use with elements that do not alter the distinctive character of the mark, and use on goods or packaging solely for export purposes. Article 9(3) adds that use with the proprietor’s consent counts as use by the proprietor — so licensee activity is relevant, which makes licence records part of the evidence trail. India splits its anchors the same way, and our India trademark docketing guide walks the same two-clock problem at a different office.

Since 10 January 2024, Revocation Is Decided by Türkpatent — in One Month

This is the most significant recent change to Turkish trademark practice, and it is the one most likely to be missing from an older country note.

Article 26 gives the Office — not the courts — the power to decide revocation on request, on four grounds: non-use under Article 9(1); the mark becoming generic through the proprietor’s acts or failure to act; the mark misleading the public as to nature, quality or geographical origin as a result of use by or with the consent of the proprietor; and use of a guarantee or collective mark contrary to Article 32.

Article 26 was deferred at enactment. Article 192(1)(a) provides that “Article 26 shall enter into force after seven years from the date of publication,” and Provisional Article 4 held that until then the cancellation authority “shall be exercised by the courts in line with the procedure and rules in the said Article.” Code No. 6769 was published on 10 January 2017, so Article 26 took effect on 10 January 2024. Provisional Article 4(2) left cancellation proceedings already pending in the courts on that date to be concluded by the courts.

Then the clock. Article 26(7): revocation requests are notified to the proprietor, who “shall submit his evidences and responses to the Office within one month. In case an extension is requested within this one month period, the Office shall grant an additional one month.”

One month, extendable to two, and the extension must be requested inside the first month. That is the shortest deadline in Turkish trademark practice, it arrives unannounced, it is served on your agent, and what it demands is use evidence — the slowest thing to assemble. A revocation notice received on day 12 of the month leaves eighteen days to either file evidence or secure the extension.

Two refinements matter for strategy. Article 26(4) saves a registration where genuine use began between the end of the five-year period and the date of the request — but use carried out within the three months before the request is disregarded if it was undertaken because a revocation request was anticipated. Starting to use a mark when the warning letter arrives does not work.

And Article 27(2): a revocation decision takes effect on the date the request was submitted to the Office, though on request it may be made effective from the earlier date on which the conditions for revocation arose. Revocation is forward-looking by default; invalidation under Article 25 reaches back to the application date under Article 27(1).

Since 10 January 2024, then, Turkey trademark docketing has had to carry an inbound one-month clock that no diary can anticipate, on a ground that is proved with evidence rather than argument. Before that date the same dispute arrived as court proceedings, with litigation timetables and the lead time those bring.

Because the one-month clock cannot be anticipated, the only real control is readiness. Every Turkish registration past its fifth year should have current use evidence on file before a request ever arrives.

Madrid and Türkiye: 1 January 1999, and the Designation Reopened in 2019

Türkiye deposited its instrument of accession to the Madrid Protocol on 1 October 1998, and the Protocol entered into force for Türkiye on 1 January 1999 (WIPO Information Notice No. 18/1998). Türkiye came in through the Protocol, not the Madrid Agreement.

Article 14(1) of Code No. 6769 gives an international application designating Türkiye “the same results with an application filed directly to the Office,” and deems it filed at the first hour and minute of the international application date — with ties between same-dated international applications broken by the lower international registration number. Article 14(2) protects the international application against a later-dated national application that happened to reach the Office first.

One change is easy to miss. Türkiye had made a declaration under Article 14(5) of the Protocol, which limited its availability for international registrations effected before its accession. Türkiye withdrew that declaration with effect from 18 October 2019, and WIPO confirmed that “as from October 18, 2019, Turkey can be the subject of a subsequent designation in respect of any international registration, including international registrations effected before January 1, 1999” (WIPO Information Notice No. 59/2019).

So a long-held international registration from the 1980s or 1990s can now carry a Turkish designation added by subsequent designation. That designation does not renew on the Turkish application anniversary — it renews with the international registration, on WIPO’s ten-year cycle from the international registration date. One brand can hold Turkish rights on two renewal clocks that never align.

Route is accordingly the first field Turkey trademark docketing has to get right, ahead of any date. A national registration and a Madrid designation covering the same mark in the same classes look identical on a register extract and renew on entirely different cycles through entirely different offices.

Flag route on the record — national filing or Madrid designation — before anything else, because route determines which calendar governs. Our international trademark renewal docketing guide covers the base-date traps this creates across a multi-designation portfolio.

The Five-Year Dependency a Turkish Designation Inherits

A Turkish designation obtained through Madrid carries the Protocol’s dependency rule with it. Under Article 6(2) and 6(3) of the Protocol, an international registration remains dependent on the basic mark for five years from the date of the international registration. If the basic mark ceases to have effect in that period — wholly or partly, or as the result of an action commenced within it — the international registration is cancelled to the same extent, in every designated territory (see the WIPO Guide to the Madrid System).

The second limb is the one that defeats a simple five-year reminder. An action begun inside the dependency period can bring down the international registration even when it concludes years afterwards. Closing the dependency diary entry on the fifth anniversary is therefore wrong wherever a cancellation, opposition or revocation action was already on foot against the basic mark.

Where ceasing of effect does occur, Article 9quinquies of the Protocol allows transformation: the holder may convert the lost designation into a national application in a designated Contracting Party, keeping the international registration’s date. Transformation is time-limited and fee-bearing, and in Türkiye it would be filed through a registered Turkish attorney like any other operation.

Two entries, then, not one: a dependency review on the fifth anniversary of the international registration, and a conditional transformation entry that activates only if the basic mark is attacked. The second is the one that earns its keep.

How the Turkish Anchors Map to the US Dates You Already Docket

For teams running Türkiye alongside a US portfolio, the mismatch is worth stating precisely, because the two systems agree on almost nothing structurally. The US dates below are as published by the USPTO (keeping your registration alive).

• Maintenance. The US requires a §8 declaration of continued use between the fifth and sixth years after the registration date, a combined §8 and §9 renewal between the ninth and tenth years, and every ten years after that (19th–20th, 29th–30th), each with a six-month grace period. Türkiye requires no mid-term use filing at all: renewal under Article 23(2) is the only periodic obligation, and the Office does not examine use at renewal.
• The use obligation still exists. It is simply enforced on request rather than by filing — Article 9(1) non-use after five years from registration, now actionable before Türkpatent under Article 26. Nothing prompts you; the first prompt is an adverse request.
• Incontestability has no counterpart. A US owner may file an optional §15 declaration after five consecutive years of use in commerce, commonly combined with the §8 filing, to narrow the grounds on which the registration can later be attacked. Türkiye offers no equivalent status, so a Turkish registration stays open to the Article 26 grounds for its whole life. Five years of Turkish use buys evidence, not immunity.

The office-action clocks differ too, and they are more fragmented on the US side than most country notes admit. Since 3 December 2022, a response to an office action issued during examination of a US application filed under §1 or §44 is due in three months, with one three-month extension available if it is requested with its fee on or before the end of the initial period (USPTO).

Two carve-outs matter. Office actions in §66(a) applications — US extensions of protection arriving through Madrid — were expressly left unchanged and remain at six months with no extension. And the parallel three-plus-three regime announced for post-registration office actions never took effect; the USPTO has confirmed the provisions “have never come into effect, and the USPTO has never implemented them” (89 FR, 19 July 2024). Post-registration responses continue under the earlier rule.

The practical conclusion is that Turkey trademark docketing cannot inherit the US maintenance schedule with the country name changed. There is no §8 equivalent to schedule, no §15 status to earn, and the use obligation that the US discharges by filing is in Türkiye discharged only by being able to prove use on demand.

Türkiye has no direct analogue to any of these. Its examination correspondence runs on periods prescribed by the Office, and its hard statutory windows are the two-month ones in Articles 18, 20 and 22 and the one-month one in Article 26(7). A single “office action response” field shared across both jurisdictions will be wrong in one of them.

9 Critical Türkpatent Dates in One Table

Every row states its anchor, because in Türkiye the anchors differ by provision. Article references are to Industrial Property Code No. 6769, published in Official Gazette No. 29944 on 10 January 2017.

Event	Period	Anchor date	Authority
Term of protection	10 years, renewable for 10-year periods	Application date	Art. 23(1)
Renewal window	Opens 6 months before expiry; request and fee-payment information both due in it	Expiry of protection	Art. 23(2)
Renewal grace period	6 months after expiry, additional fee; no restoration afterwards	Expiry of protection	Arts. 23(2), 28(1)(a)
Opposition	2 months, non-extendable; grounds and fee information included	Bulletin publication of the application	Art. 18(1)–(2)
Registration fee	2 months from notification; failure abolishes the application	Service of the allowance notice on the agent	Arts. 22(1), 160(4)
Defective-registration exposure	Ends 2 years after registration	Registration date	Art. 22(2)
Appeal to the Board	2 months; grounds frozen at expiry	Notification of the decision	Art. 20(2)
Court action against a Board decision	2 months, Ankara Civil Court of Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights only	Notification of the Board decision	Art. 156(2)
Non-use vulnerability	5 years; response to a revocation request is 1 month + one 1-month extension	Registration date	Arts. 9(1), 26(7)

Two dates sit outside the table because they are not Turkish dates at all: the Madrid five-year dependency, measured from the international registration date, and the WIPO renewal cycle that governs a Turkish designation obtained by designation or subsequent designation.

The Record Fields a Turkish Matter Needs

Most of the failures described above are field-level, not reminder-level. A Turkish record that carries these fields can compute every date in the table; one that does not, cannot — no matter how good the reminder schedule is.

• Application date — drives the term and every renewal cycle. Stored separately, never derived.
• Registration date — drives the five-year non-use clock and the Article 22(2) two-year window. A second first-class field, not a display value.
• Route — national filing or Madrid designation, and if Madrid, whether by original designation or subsequent designation. Determines which renewal calendar governs.
• International registration date — where the route is Madrid. Anchors dependency and the WIPO renewal cycle.
• Agent service date, per item of correspondence — the legal trigger under Article 160(4) for every two-month clock. The date the file arrived internally belongs in a separate field and should never drive a deadline.
• Class-level scope at each renewal — Article 23(3) permits partial renewal, so scope has to be versioned rather than overwritten.
• Use evidence last refreshed, per class — the only field that makes the Article 26(7) one-month response survivable, and the one that answers an Article 19(2) demand in opposition.
• Pending actions against a Madrid basic mark — keeps the dependency entry open past the fifth anniversary where an action was commenced inside the period.

If you want a general-purpose version of this exercise across a whole portfolio rather than one country, our trademark docketing checklist covers the same audit discipline applied jurisdiction by jurisdiction.

One closing observation about Turkey trademark docketing. The Turkish periods are not unusually short — two months is longer than the USPTO allows for a notice of opposition. What makes them demanding is the combination: periods that are complete on filing, non-extendable, triggered by service on a representative abroad, and in the case of Article 26(7) measured in a single month against evidence that takes longer than that to collect. Docket the anchors correctly and none of it is difficult. Docket them from the wrong date and the grace periods are not wide enough to absorb the error.

How PerspireIP Can Help

PerspireIP runs trademark docketing as a managed service for firms and in-house teams whose portfolios cross Türkpatent, the USPTO, the EUIPO and WIPO. For Turkish matters that means the application date and the registration date are both captured as first-class fields rather than one being derived from the other, national and Madrid routes are flagged separately so the right renewal calendar governs, and every item of agent correspondence is docketed against the agent’s service date — the date the statute actually counts from.

If you hold Turkish registrations docketed by a system built for US anchors, the most useful single check is to compare each stored expiry date against the application date rather than the registration date. Any record where expiry sits ten years after registration is wrong, and it is a one-query test. We will tell you what we find either way.

Frequently Asked Questions