New Turkish domain name system creates a situation in need of resolution
Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

New Turkish domain name system creates a situation in need of resolution

Sponsored by


Zeynep Seda Alhas, Pınar Arıkan and Baran Güney of Gün + Partners identify several shortcomings with the new provisions regarding domain name disputes in Turkey (.tr Domain Name Management), which was established under the auspices of Middle East Technical University, has been managing .tr domain names and dispute resolution processes related to these domain names since 1991. However, under Article 35 of Law No. 5809 on Electronic Communications and the Internet Domain Names Regulation, TRABIS (.tr Network Information System), established by the Information and Communication Technologies Authority, became operational on September 14 2022 and is now managing .tr domain names.

Changes under TRABIS

TRABIS serves as the system that manages the registration, renewal and operation of .tr domain names. Within the scope of TRABIS, the registry and registrar model, which is implemented worldwide in accordance with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, has started to be fully implemented in Turkey. Within this framework, services are provided by registrars approved by TRABIS, which mediate transactions related to domain names, such as domain name application, renewal and cancellation.

Upon the introduction of TRABIS, a ‘first come, first served’ principle has started to be implemented for the allocation of domain names such as,,,,,,,,,, and The obligation to submit documents to prove the rights of the applicant has been abolished. This new situation is expected to result in third parties' registration of domain names before the trademark holders register their domain names.

Dispute resolution service providers, which are granted an activity certificate by TRABIS, have started to handle the alternative dispute resolution process regarding domain names. Accordingly, dispute resolution service providers evaluate disputes regarding domain names by taking into consideration the relevant legislation, case law and judicial decisions through their arbitrators or arbitral tribunals and may decide upon the cancellation of domain names, their transfer to the complainant or the rejection of the complainant's request, depending on the request of the complainant.

In addition, it is still possible to file a civil court action before the courts for the cancellation of .tr domain names.

The Internet Domain Names Regulation has introduced a different scheme regarding the alternative dispute resolution mechanism for domain names registered before the enforcement of TRABIS. Under paragraph 9 of Provisional Article 1 of the Internet Domain Names Regulation and Provisional Article 3 of the Communiqué on Dispute Resolution Mechanism for Internet Domain Names, no application can be filed to the alternative dispute resolution mechanism for domain names that were allocated before TRABIS became operational.

It is possible to apply to dispute resolution service providers with regard to domain names with a .tr extension registered after September 14 2022, when TRABIS launched its activities. However, it is only possible to apply to dispute resolution service providers concerning domain names with a .tr extension registered before September 14 2022 after their renewal date. Therefore, under current legislation, disputes related to such domain names can only be brought to court.


Analysis of the new system

Given that .tr domain names can be registered and allocated for up to five years, it can be considered that the unavailability of an alternative dispute resolution method against a domain name that was registered or renewed for five years shortly before September 14 2022 creates a significant loss of rights during this period. This dual regulation may be considered as contradicting the principle of equality set forth in the Constitution and the freedom to seek rights.

Indeed, the alternative dispute resolution methods envisaged for domain names are fast and are finalised within a few months, whereas the process takes longer and may take up to several years to be finalised in the case of judicial proceedings before the courts regarding domain names. These proceedings are also more burdensome in terms of costs.

Furthermore, while the cancellation, or transfer to the complainant, of the disputed domain name can be claimed through the alternative dispute resolution method, only the cancellation of the disputed domain name can be claimed before the courts. This shows that litigation is less advantageous than the alternative dispute resolution method for domain name disputes.

This system, which creates an unequal situation in domain name disputes, should be addressed promptly and the alternative dispute resolution method should be made accessible for domain names allocated and/or renewed before September 14 2022, through a legislative amendment.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

View the Social Impact EMEA Awards 2024 shortlist and join us on September 12 at The Waldorf Hotel in London
James Tumbridge talks about advising the government on AI and why his day could start with the police and end with legal networking
Data from Managing IP+’s Talent Tracker shows that the IP ambitions of Asian full-service firms and a life sciences focus in the US have prompted lateral moves
Michelle Lue-Reid has joined the IP business as its chief transformation officer and will look to implement major change initiatives across member firms
Chad Landmon, who joins in Washington DC, hopes to expand the firm’s Hatch-Waxman practice
The FRAND rate is only 5 cents higher than the per-device rate determined at first instance in 2023
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Nearly four months after joining Crowell & Moring, Edward Taelman reflects on starting afresh, new clients, and firm culture
Firms discuss the ebb and flow of life sciences IP work and explain how they help professionals pivot between specialities
Mercedes-Benz, Dolby Laboratories, and Panasonic discuss the merits and drawbacks of the USPTO's terminal disclaimer proposal
Gift this article