Turkey: Evidence gathering is important in criminal actions

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Turkey: Evidence gathering is important in criminal actions

In Turkey, the prosecution of criminal offences relating to trademark law depends on a proper complaint filed by the trademark owner. Once the complaint and the evidence is submitted to the local prosecutor's office, the file is brought before the local criminal court. The criminal courts, however, have become more and more reluctant to issue decisions recently. Hence, it is now more important than ever for trademark owners to be well-prepared before filing a complaint, in terms of evidence gathering.

The preparation of the complaint starts with investigations, and on-site investigations are particularly important to obtain very basic evidence, such as the target's clear address, photos, samples with receipt etc. These steps should be handled by trusted investigators and the supervision of legal professionals should be sought at all times, as in Turkey, the activities of private investigators are not regulated by law.

Undercover notarised test purchases are the strongest evidence in criminal actions, especially where it is not possible to conduct a test purchase with receipt. With a notarised purchase, it becomes indisputable that the target deals with the sale of counterfeit goods, and it provides protection for the brand owner in case products cannot be seized during a raid (this theoretically gives the counterfeiter an option to request compensation from the complainant due to an unlawful raid).

The public prosecutor and the criminal judge may also request original samples to compare with the counterfeits and a simple technical report comparing the original and counterfeit items would be benefical. Witness statements are also an option, despite not being as strong as other forms of evidence.

Recently, public prosecutors have also started assigning the police for undercover investigations as per Articles 160 and 161 of Criminal Procedural Law, as an additional ground for the search and seizure warrant. In this circumstance, the police visits the target's address and confirms whether or not the targets deal with counterfeits. This conduct can also be supervised via contact with the police, so that the counterfeiters do not notice that they are under surveillance.

We suggest brand owners give priority to evidence gathering procedures before filing criminal complaints, not only to increase the chances of obtaining a search and seizure order but also in order to secure themselves against counterclaims from counterfeiters.

alhas-zeynepseda.jpg
bozoglu-ali.jpg

Zeynep

Seda

Alhas

Ali Bozoğlu


Gün + PartnersKore Şehitleri Cad. 17Zincirlikuyu 34394İstanbul, TurkeyTel: + (90) (212) 354 00 00Fax: + (90) (212) 274 20 95gun@gun.av.trgun.av.tr

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

IP STARS, Managing IP’s accreditation title, reveals its latest rankings for patent work, including which firms are moving up
Leaders at US law firms explain what attorneys can learn from AI cases involving Meta and Anthropic, and why the outcomes could guide litigation strategies
Attorneys reveal the trademark and copyright trends they’ve noticed within the first half of 2025
Senior leaders at TE Connectivity and Clarivate explain how they see the future of innovation
A new action filed by Nokia against Asus and a landmark ruling on counterfeits by South Africa’s Supreme Court were also among the top talking points
Counsel explain how they’re navigating patent prosecution matters and highlight key takeaways from Federal Circuit cases
A partner who joined Fenwick alongside two others explains what drew her to the firm and her hopes for growth in Boston
The England and Wales High Court has granted Kirkland & Ellis client Samsung interim declaratory relief in its ongoing FRAND dispute with ZTE
A UDRP decision that found in favour of a small business in a domain name dispute could encourage more businesses to take a stand in ‘David v Goliath’ cases
In Iconix v Dream Pairs, the Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal was wrong to interfere with an earlier ruling, prompting questions about the appeal court’s remit
Gift this article