Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

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.





Ali Bozoğlu

Gün + PartnersKore Şehitleri Cad. 17Zincirlikuyu 34394İstanbul, TurkeyTel: + (90) (212) 354 00 00Fax: + (90) (212) 274 20

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Civil society and industry representatives met in Geneva on Thursday, September 28 to discuss a potential expansion of the TRIPS waiver
Sources say the beta version of the USPTO’s new trademark search tool is a big improvement over the current system but that it isn’t perfect
Canadian counsel weigh in on the IP office’s decision to raise trademark filing fees in 2024 and how they’re preparing clients
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Shira Perlmutter, US Register of Copyrights, discussed the Copyright Office's role in forming generative AI policy during a House of Representatives hearing
The award marks one of the highest-ever damages received by a foreign company in a trademark infringement suit in China
Two orders denying public access to documents have reignited a debate over a lack of transparency at the new court
Rouse’s new chief of operations and the firm’s CEO tell Managing IP why they think private equity backing will help it conquer Europe
Brian Landry, partner at Saul Ewing, reveals how applicants can prosecute patent applications in the wake of the Federal Circuit's In re Cellect ruling
Ronelle Geldenhuys of Australia’s Foundry IP considers the implications complex computer technologies such as AI have on decision-making