Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 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: 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

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Brands should not be deterred from pursuing lookalike producers, and an unfair advantage claim could be the key, say Emma Teichmann and Geoff Steward at Stobbs
Justice Mellor’s highly anticipated ruling surprised SEP owners and reassured implementers that the UK may not be so hostile after all
The England and Wales High Court's judgment comes ahead of a separate hearing concerning one of the patents-in-suit at the EPO
While the rules allow foreign firms to open local offices and offer IP services, a ban on litigation and practising Indian law could mean little will change
A New York federal court heard oral arguments this week in a copyright case pitting publishing giants against a digital library
Commissioner Hamano Koichi shares his vision for the JPO and explains that IP offices must promote innovation that drives social change
The Asia-Pacific awards research cycle has now begun – don’t miss on this opportunity be recognised in 2023
The Supreme Court, which is hearing two IP cases this week, should limit the power of US courts to rule on foreign sales
Safety standards wouldn’t lose copyright protection when named in law, so long as they were accessible for free online
In-house tech sources say Amgen v Sanofi has the potential to stifle their prosecution and litigation strategies if SCOTUS’s decision is too broad