The Use of Terminology Regarding the Protection of Interior Designs as “Designs” under Industrial Property Rights: An Evaluation through the Stakeholders Perspectives

Throughout history, similar but different terms have been used for decoration/interior decoration, interior design, and interior architecture. The literature indicates that there are certain differences between the scope and outputs of the terminology in question. However, both in theory and in practice, it is observed that terms such as interior design and decoration/interior decoration are still frequently used, and their scope and outcomes are often confused. It is thought that the prejudices that have emerged in this process have led to the terminology of interior design, which is a discipline distinct from decoration/interior decoration, to be approached in a reductionist manner in terms of scope and outputs. In particular, in the “design” protection, the term “interior design” is not included in regulatory texts such as the Locarno Classification System and the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (TÜRKPATENT) Design Examination Guide; instead, terms such as “presentation (get-up),” “interior layout,” and “interior arrangement” are used. This study addresses the problems created by the terminology used in regulatory texts regarding the protection of interior designs as “designs” under the Industrial Property Code No. 6769 (IPC) and the effects of these problems in practice. The study uses a qualitative research method; patent and trademark attorneys involved in design registration application processes, court experts involved in evaluation processes, judges currently serving or who have served at the Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights Court, and experts from the TÜRKPATENT Design Department and Copyright General Directorate. The data obtained through semi-structured interviews with a total of 32 participants was analyzed using content analysis, focusing on terminology usage, and the findings were grouped under three different themes. It was determined that the terminology used could lead to an incomplete or misleading perception of interior designs. In this context, alternatives and a systematic approach to terminology usage were proposed.