Turkey: Registration no longer constitutes legitimate use defence in Turkey

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: Registration no longer constitutes legitimate use defence in Turkey

Turkey has welcomed the new Intellectual Property Code (the IP Code) numbered 6769. This came into force on January 10 2017.

One of the major changes in the new IP Code is an explicit provision in Article 155 preventing later dated IP registrations being submitted as a defence in infringement actions.

Before the IP Code, there was established case law from the Court of Appeals stating that use of a registered IP right could not be prevented until the invalidation of the right was obtained. This case law resulted in de facto immunity for infringers allowing them to safely continue their infringements. In particular, the design registration system (which is rather quick as there was no ex-officio examination) was severely abused by infringers, and they obtained design registrations for the infringing packaging or infringing products. These registrations allowed them to safely use the infringing items until the end of the invalidation proceedings (at the minimum between one and two years).

As a result of the difficulties posed by case law for an effective fight against infringers, Article 155 of the IP Code has been welcomed.

So far, the courts have been hesitant when it comes to decisions, particularly in matters concerning preliminary injunction (PI) requests in infringement actions where the defendant holds a registered IP right. Interpretation of this Article by first instance courts has been rather strict for PI requests, and they have been rejected simply due to the need for an examination on the merits of the file which has resulted in continued use by infringers even in obvious cases of bad faith registrations. Recently the Bakırköy IP Court refused a PI request on the same ground, and this was appealed before the district court. The district court, by clearly referring to Article 155 of the IP Code, revoked the decision of the first instance court and rendered a PI order where the defendant was clearly acting in bad faith. We believe that this decision will guide first instance courts on the interpretation of the Article when it comes to PI requests and will allow trade mark owners to protect their trade marks against infringers by obtaining a PI order, even when a registered IP right exists.

Nevertheless, there will need to be a balance in the implementation of the regulation since the change introduced into the new IP Code rule also means that the risk of an infringement claim exists for trade marks which were registered in good faith.

Hande Hançar Çelik

Berrin Dinçer


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

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
Chris Moore at HGF reflects on the ‘spirit of collegiality’ that led to an important ruling in G1/24, a case concerning how European patent claims should be interpreted
Gift this article