Intellectual Property 2026 Comparisons

The principal source of Turkish patent law is the Industrial Property Law No 6769 (IPL), in force since 10 January 2017, which governs patent and utility model disputes (Articles 82–145), supplemented by general provisions. In addition, inventors may rely on unfair competition under the Turkish Commercial Code (TCC), tort under the Turkish Code of Obligations (TCO) and trade secret protections under the Turkish Penal Code (TPC), while secondary legislation and, for earlier rights, the repealed Patent Decree Law, remain relevant.

Under Article 82 of the IPL, patents are granted for inventions in all fields of technology, provided that they cumulatively satisfy the criteria of novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability. Novelty requires that an invention has not been made available to the public anywhere in the world before the filing or priority date by any means, while an inventive step exists where it is not obvious to a person skilled in the art in light of the state of the art. Industrial applicability requires that the invention can be produced or used in any field of industry, including agriculture.

Article 82 establishes a two-tier system of exclusions. Firstly, certain subject matter is not regarded as an invention, including discoveries, scientific theories, mathematical methods, business methods, computer programs as such, aesthetic creations and presentations of information without technical contribution. Secondly, even where a technical feature exists, patents are not granted for inventions contrary to public order or morality, plant and animal varieties and essentially biological processes (excluding microbiological ones), medical and diagnostic methods practised on humans or animals, the human body and its elements, and certain biotechnological inventions such as cloning or germ line modification, although products used in medical methods remain patentable and microbiological processes are distinguished from essentially biological ones.

Utility models are regulated alongside patents and protect relatively minor, industry-applicable technical solutions embodied in three-dimensional products without necessarily requiring an inventive step. They confer exclusive rights similar in scope to patents, but through a faster and more cost-effective registration process, with a shorter, non-renewable term of ten years. Utility models are subject to patent provisions where applicable and may be converted from or into patent applications. However, they are limited to tangible products, excluding methods and formulations, and it is not possible to obtain both a patent and a utility model for the same invention. The system operates on a first-to-file basis, requires a search report, and protection may lapse upon expiry, non-payment of fees or surrender.

A patent application is filed with the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (TURKPATENT) by submitting the application form, paying the fee and providing the description, claims, abstract and, where applicable, drawings. The application undergoes formal examination, with deficiencies leading to rejection if not remedied in time. A search request must be filed within 12 months of filing, and the resulting search report, forming the first substantive assessment, is published with the application, which is in any event published after 18 months. Following publication, third parties may submit observations, and the applicant must request substantive examination, during which the patentability criteria are assessed. If granted, the patent is published, and third parties may oppose within six months; the final decision, following review, is notified and published, concluding the procedure.

TURKPATENT examines patent applications on both formal and substantive grounds and decides on registration. In straightforward cases, the process typically takes 2–3 years from filing to grant, extending to 3–5 years where objections or amendments arise; a search report is usually issued within 6–12 months, followed by publication, third-party observations and a substantive examination phase of a further 6–18 months, after which, if the criteria are met, the patent is granted and published, triggering a six-month opposition period. The system involves one-off procedural fees and annual renewal fees, revised yearly; under the 2026 tariff, the filing fee is approximately TRY620, search and examination fees range between TRY2,500 and TRY10,000 per stage, and a grant fee of around TRY3,800 is payable, with additional fees for priority claims. Renewal fees are payable from the third year onwards to maintain the patent. While resident applicants may apply directly, representation is mandatory for non-residents and generally advisable in all cases.

A granted patent confers an exclusive right to exploit the invention and to prevent unauthorised third-party use. Under Article 85 of the IPL, the owner may prohibit the manufacture, use, sale, import or possession for such purposes of the patented product, the use or offering of a patented process where unauthorised use is or should be known, and the commercial use of products obtained from that process. These rights apply irrespective of the place of invention, field of technology, or whether products are imported or locally produced.

Pursuant to Article 101, protection lasts for a fixed, non-renewable term of 20 years from the filing date, after which the invention falls into the public domain. Annual maintenance fees must be paid from the third year onwards, in advance on each filing anniversary, without notice from TURKPATENT. Late payment is permitted within a six-month grace period with surcharge, failing which the patent lapses. Reinstatement is possible within two months of notification upon payment of the prescribed fee, restoring protection from the payment date and publication in the Bulletin. No supplementary protection certificates or term extensions are available.

The right to apply for and own a patent vests in the inventor or their legal successors. It is not necessary for the applicant to have made the invention personally, provided the right has been lawfully acquired. Ownership may be sole or joint. Employee inventions are regulated under Articles 113–122 of the IPL, distinguishing between service and free inventions. Service inventions made in the course of employment belong economically to the employer, subject to the employee’s mandatory right to equitable remuneration and to be named as inventor. The employee must notify the employer, who must elect within statutory time limits whether to claim rights. A full claim obliges the employer to file a patent application and pay reasonable compensation. Remuneration disputes are subject to compulsory arbitration. Free inventions falling outside the employer’s field do not require notification.

In universities and publicly funded research, inventions must be disclosed and generally vest in the institution, with at least one-third of commercialisation income allocated to the inventor. Assignments and licences are subject to formal requirements. Assignment and licence agreements must be in writing and notarised, and both transactions must be recorded in the patent register to be effective against bona fide third parties. Unregistered transactions remain valid inter partes but cannot be invoked against third parties acting in good faith.

Under Article 141 of the IPL, patent infringement covers both direct exploitation and contributory involvement in infringing activities.

Direct infringement includes the unauthorised manufacture or use of a patented product or process, and, where a process patent is concerned, the use or commercialisation of products directly obtained from that process. Usurpation of ownership and unauthorised extension or transfer of licence rights is also treated as infringement.

Contributory infringement arises where a party knowingly, or who ought to know, participates in the commercial circulation of infringing goods by selling, importing, offering, or possessing them for commercial purposes.

Infringement occurs where the claims of a patent are used, either literally or by way of equivalents. It may also arise where certain claim elements are omitted or replaced, provided the essential features of the invention are still embodied. Proceedings may be initiated from publication of the application, and bad-faith acts may give rise to liability even earlier.

The exclusive rights under Article 85 are subject to statutory limitations, including private and non-commercial use, experimental use for regulatory purposes, pharmacy preparations, and certain sector-specific exceptions. Defences include prior use under Article 87, permitting continued use within the undertaking’s needs, and compulsory licensing under Articles 129 et seq. In addition, exhaustion applies to the products lawfully placed on the market in Türkiye, reflecting an international exhaustion regime. However, this does not extend to process patents.

Patent disputes are heard by specialised IP Civil Courts or designated civil courts of first instance where none exist. TURKPATENT has no jurisdiction over infringement. An appeal may be filed before TURKPATENT against its decision, and the final decision may be challenged by filing an action for annulment before the Ankara IP Courts. Proceedings at first instance typically last 12–24 months. Parallel validity challenges, such as before the European Patent Office or via national invalidation, do not automatically stay proceedings, though courts may grant a discretionary stay. Preliminary injunctions, including ex parte measures, and evidence preservation are available. Remedies include injunctions, seizure and destruction, and pecuniary, non-pecuniary and reputational damages, with the claimant free to choose the calculation method; disgorgement of profits may also be sought. Additional actions include claims for usurpation of the right to apply for a patent and invalidation actions. Costs and statutory attorney’s fees are generally recoverable, subject to tariff limits. However, full indemnity recovery is uncommon. The IPL does not provide for criminal liability for patent infringement. However, recourse may be had under the unfair competition provisions of the TCC.

In Türkiye, trade mark protection is governed primarily by the IPL, together with secondary legislation, in particular the Regulation on the Implementation of the Industrial Property Law (“Regulation”), which sets out detailed procedural rules on application, examination, opposition and registration processes before TURKPATENT. Under Article 4 of the IPL, a trade mark may consist of any sign capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of others and capable of being represented in the register in a clear and precise manner. This includes words (including personal names), figures, colours, letters, numerals, sounds, and the shape of goods or their packaging. Accordingly, protectable signs include word marks, logos, colours, shapes and sound marks. While the definition is broad, non-traditional marks (eg, scents) are difficult to register because of the representation requirement. As regards unregistered trade marks, Article 6 of the IPL provides that, if, prior to the filing date or, where applicable, the priority date, a right has been acquired in an unregistered trade mark or another sign used in the course of trade, the trade mark application shall be refused upon opposition by the owner of that earlier sign. In other words, prior use may be relied upon in opposition proceedings under the IPL, and protection may also arise under the unfair competition provisions of the TCC.

It is required that the sign is capable of being represented in the register in a manner which enables the subject matter of the protection afforded to the trade mark owner to be determined clearly and precisely. Accordingly, a trade mark must (i) be distinctive and (ii) consist of a sign. The distinctive function of a trade mark implies, on the one hand, differentiation from the goods and/or services for which it is registered or used, and, on the other, differentiation from the goods and/or services of other undertakings. Distinctiveness must be assessed by reference to the perception of the average consumer and in relation to the goods or services concerned. In this context, distinctiveness refers to the ability of goods and/or services placed on the market by different undertakings to be distinguished from one another by consumers or users.

Distinctiveness may be categorised as inherent (abstract) and acquired (concrete). Inherent distinctiveness concerns whether a sign is registrable as such, whereas acquired distinctiveness relates to the ability of the sign to distinguish the goods or services for which registration is sought from those of other undertakings.

Depending on their level of recognition, trade marks may be classified as ordinary and well-known marks. Ordinary marks are those that obtain protection through registration but do not enjoy a particular level of recognition. Well-known marks, to the extent that the conditions set out in Article 6(5) of the IPL are met, may benefit from protection beyond identical or similar classes, including in relation to dissimilar goods and/or services. The relevant provision reads as follows:

“Where, due to the level of recognition attained in Türkiye by a registered trademark or a trademark for which an earlier application has been filed, use of an identical or similar mark would result in an unfair advantage being taken of, or would be detrimental to, the reputation or the distinctive character of the earlier mark, the application for registration of the later mark shall, upon opposition by the owner of the earlier mark, be refused, unless there is due cause, irrespective of whether the application relates to identical, similar or different goods or services.”

Even if a well-known trade mark is not registered, it may, in any event, benefit from protection under the unfair competition provisions of the TCC.

Trade mark rights are intangible property rights of an absolute nature. They may be asserted against third parties and confer exclusive rights on their owner only upon registration. In order to benefit from the protection provided under the IPL, registration with the TURKPATENT is required. As per Article 7 of the IPL, protection of trade marks under the IPL is obtained through registration. A trade mark is protected only in respect of the goods or services for which it is registered.

The registration process proceeds as follows:

• filing of the registration application;
• classification and examination by the TURKPATENT;
• publication of the application;
• opposition to the application within two months following the publication;
• examination of oppositions; and
• acceptance or refusal of the application.

The application must include:

• an application form containing the applicant’s identification details;
• a representation of the trade mark;
• a list of the goods and/or services covered by the application;
• information evidencing payment of the application fee;
• where the application concerns a collective or certification mark, the technical specification prepared in accordance with Article 32;
• where priority is claimed, information evidencing payment of the priority fee; and
• where the mark contains letters other than those of the Latin alphabet, their transliteration into the Latin alphabet.

Pursuant to Article 11(2) of the IPL, a separate application must be filed for each trade mark.

The trade mark application process typically takes approximately 7–12 months. It is possible to file trade mark applications covering multiple classes.

For 2026, the main official fees are as follows:

• single-class trade mark application fee: TRY2,820;
• additional class fee (second class): TRY2,820;
• trade mark registration fee: TRY7,010; and
• fee for issuance of a copy of the registration certificate: TRY2,890.

The relevant fees are subject to change on an annual basis and may, at times, also be increased within the same year for economic reasons.

The term of protection of a registered trade mark is ten years from the application date. It may be renewed indefinitely in successive ten-year periods.

The request for renewal must be filed by the trade mark owner within the six months preceding the expiry of the protection period, and information evidencing payment of the renewal fee must be submitted to the TURKPATENT within the same period. If the request is not filed or the fee payment information is not submitted within this period, the renewal request may still be made within six months following the expiry of the protection period, subject to payment of an additional fee.

A trade mark may also be renewed in respect of only some of the goods or services covered by the registration.

Pursuant to Article 9 of the IPL, a trade mark shall be revoked if, within a continuous period of five years following registration, it has not been put to genuine use in Türkiye by the owner in relation to the goods or services for which it is registered, without proper reason, or if such use has been suspended for an uninterrupted period of five years.

The following shall also constitute use of the trade mark:

• use of the mark in a form differing in elements which do not alter its distinctive character;
• affixing the mark to goods or their packaging in Türkiye solely for export purposes; and
• use of the mark with the consent of the owner, which is also deemed as use by the owner.

These examples are not exhaustive.

Under Turkish law, non-use does not automatically extinguish a trade mark but becomes relevant when raised as a defence. A registered trade mark may be revoked if not genuinely used within five years from registration or if use is interrupted for five consecutive years. Use must relate to the registered goods/services and may include use on invoices, websites, catalogues or advertisements. Renewal or assignment does not qualify as use. A non-use defence may also be invoked in invalidity proceedings.

Under Article 19/6(1), IPL, in opposition proceedings, if the earlier mark has been registered for at least five years, the applicant may require the opponent to prove genuine use in Türkiye during the preceding five years or justify non-use. Failure to do so results in rejection of the opposition; unused marks cannot be effectively relied upon.

According to Article 26 of the IPL, interested parties may request revocation of a trade mark before TURKPATENT. As of 10 January 2024, such requests are examined by TURKPATENT. Revocation requests are directed against the person recorded as the owner in the register at the date of the request or their legal successors. If the trade mark has been put to genuine use in relation to the registered goods or services between the expiry of the five-year period and the date on which the revocation request is filed, the request shall be rejected. However, use commenced within the three months preceding the filing of the revocation request shall be disregarded if preparations for such use began only after the owner became aware that a revocation request might be filed.

The rights arising from trade mark registration belong exclusively to the owner. Under Article 7 of the IPL, the owner may prevent, without consent:

• use of an identical sign for identical goods or services;
• use of an identical or similar sign for identical or similar goods or services where a likelihood of confusion (including association) exists; and
• use of an identical or similar sign, without due cause, even for dissimilar goods or services, where the mark has a reputation in Türkiye and such use takes unfair advantage of or harms its distinctive character or repute.

Article 7 further provides that, where used in trade, the following acts may also be prohibited:

• affixing the sign to goods or packaging;
• offering, marketing, stocking or supplying goods or services under the sign;
• importing or exporting goods bearing the sign;
• use in business papers or advertising;
• use on the internet (eg, domain names, keywords or similar tools) creating commercial effect without a legitimate connection;
• use as a trade or business name; and
• use in unlawful comparative advertising.

The owner may not prevent third-party use in accordance with honest commercial practices, including:

• use of one’s own name or address;
• descriptive use indicating characteristics of goods or services; and
• use necessary to indicate the intended purpose of a product (eg, accessories or spare parts).

In such actions, the following defences may be raised:

• lawful use;
• prior use conferring a superior right;
• joint ownership (eg, arising from partnership or inheritance);
• use of non-distinctive descriptive elements; and
• exhaustion of rights, where goods have been lawfully placed on the market, unless they have been altered or impaired.

A trade mark owner may not rely on its right as a defence against a claim brought by a party holding an earlier filing or priority right.

The following acts constitute trade mark infringement:

• unauthorised use of the mark as specified in Article 7;
• imitation by using the mark or an indistinguishably similar sign;
• marketing, importing/exporting, possessing or offering goods bearing an infringing mark where the person knows or should know of the infringement; and
• unauthorised extension or transfer of licence rights.

Available actions include determination, cessation and prevention of infringement, removal of effects, and claims for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. Additional damages may be claimed where the mark’s reputation is harmed.

Trade mark rights are enforceable from publication of registration. After publication of the application, damages may be claimed for acts that would have been prohibited upon registration. However, courts cannot decide before publication.

Jurisdiction lies with IP Civil and Criminal Courts; actions against TURKPATENT fall under the Ankara IP Courts. Intentional infringement may result in imprisonment (1–3 years) and judicial fines.

Interim measures may be granted, including cessation, seizure and preservation of infringing goods (including in customs zones), and provision of security.

Unregistered trade marks may be protected under unfair competition rules where use creates confusion or misleads the public. In such cases, parties may seek determination, injunction, removal of effects (including correction or destruction), and damages (pecuniary and non-pecuniary). Intentional unfair competition may lead to imprisonment of up to two years or a judicial fine.

Copyright in Türkiye is primarily governed by the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works No 5846 (FSEK). Relevant secondary legislation includes the Regulation on Collecting Societies and the Regulation on Neighbouring Rights. Under FSEK, protection arises automatically for “works” reflecting the author’s individuality. Protected categories include:

• scientific and literary works (including software);
• musical works;
• works of fine art (paintings, sculptures, architectural and graphic works); and
• cinematographic works.

Original adaptations and compilations are also protected. Although designs are primarily regulated under the IPL, they may enjoy parallel copyright protection if they qualify as a “work”. Applied art such as furniture or fashion may be protected as fine art where it reflects sufficient artistic originality, allowing cumulative protection under both regimes.

For protection under FSEK, a creation must cumulatively meet the criteria in Articles 1/B and 2–5. It must be the product of intellectual effort, reflect the author’s individuality, be fixed in a perceptible form, and fall within a recognised category of works.

Copyright arises automatically upon creation; hence, no registration or formality is required. Certain sector-specific requirements exist such as bandrol obligations for cinematographic and musical works and non-periodical publications. These are regulatory but not constitutive of rights. Optional registration may, however, assist in evidencing authorship and date of creation.

Under Article 8 of the FSEK, authorship vests in the natural person who creates the work; legal entities cannot be authors. The person named on the work is presumed to be the author unless proven otherwise, and the creator of an adaptation or compilation is recognised as its author, without prejudice to rights in the underlying work. Where multiple persons contribute, they are joint authors if the work forms an indivisible whole. If contributions are separable, each person is the author of their own part. In cinematographic works, the director, scriptwriter and composer, and the animator for animated works, are deemed joint authors. For works created in the course of employment or under commission, authorship remains with the individual, but the economic rights are, by law, exercisable by the employer or commissioning party within the scope of duties or contract. Moral rights remain personal to the author and cannot be exercised by others.

Under FSEK, copyright comprises economic and moral rights.

Economic rights, exhaustively listed in Articles 21–25 and 45, include adaptation, reproduction, distribution, public performance and communication to the public including digital transmission. These rights may be assigned or licensed exclusively or non-exclusively, provided the agreement is in writing and each right is specified separately.

Moral rights, regulated in Articles 14–17, are personal to the author and include the rights of disclosure, attribution and integrity. They are non-transferable, though their exercise may be authorised to third parties and, after death, they pass to heirs in a limited manner.

Article 80 further recognises neighbouring rights for performers, phonogram producers, broadcasters and film producers, without prejudice to the author’s rights.

The general term of copyright protection is the life of the author plus 70 years. In the case of joint authorship, the term runs from the death of the last surviving author. Where the rights holder is a legal entity, the term is 70 years from disclosure. For works published posthumously, protection lasts 70 years from the author’s death, whereas for anonymous works, the term runs for 70 years from the date of disclosure. The duration of protection for an original work and its adaptations is assessed independently. Article 58 further provides a right of withdrawal. Should the transferee or licensee fail to exploit the work properly, the author may revoke the grant and recover the economic rights, subject to equitable compensation where the failure is not attributable to fault.

Exceptions and limitations to copyright are exhaustively regulated and may be invoked only where expressly provided by statute (Articles 30–47, FSEK). These operate as grounds of lawfulness and may be raised as a defence in infringement proceedings. Key exceptions include use for public order and administrative purposes; use of legislation, court decisions and parliamentary speeches; educational uses; and quotation, subject to prior lawful disclosure, attribution and proportionality, rather than a broad “fair use” doctrine. Further exceptions cover news reporting and freedom of expression, private non-commercial use (subject to the three-step test), certain uses for persons with disabilities, and depiction of works permanently located in public places. Parody is not expressly regulated but may be accommodated within quotation and free-use principles. These exceptions are interpreted restrictively and on a case-by-case basis, with courts assessing compliance with moral rights, attribution requirements and proportionality.

Copyright infringement arises where economic, moral or neighbouring rights are used without authorisation, or beyond the scope of a licence or in breach of its terms. It includes any unauthorised adaptation, reproduction, distribution, performance or communication to the public, including digital transmission, as well as the commercial circulation or possession, beyond personal use, of infringing material. Further acts include passing off, failure to attribute, unauthorised disclosure of unpublished works, false attribution, and circumvention of technological protection measures. Breach of bandrol requirements also constitutes infringement. Under FSEK, both civil and criminal remedies are available.

Civil relief includes injunctions, pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, disgorgement of profits and, under Article 68, enhanced compensation of up to three times the licence fee. While the system does not recognise statutory damages in the strict common law sense, liability in damages requires fault. However, the right holder may alternatively claim the profits obtained by the infringer. Interim measures such as seizure, evidence preservation and blocking orders are available. Criminal liability arises for infringement of protected rights, circumvention of protection measures and bandrol violations. Blocking orders, such as content removal and suspension of services, are also available.

Infringement is not limited to verbatim copying. The unauthorised use of a substantial part of a work may also infringe. Courts apply a qualitative test, examining whether the copied elements reflect the author’s originality and amount to substantial similarity in protected expression. Even a small extract may suffice if it captures the work’s distinctive character, whereas similarities confined to generic or functional elements, or mere inspiration, do not. Assessment is case-specific, typically based on expert evidence and the nature of the work. In software, non-literal copying, such as the reproduction of structure, sequence or organisation, including through reverse engineering or “clone coding”, may constitute infringement where it extends beyond ideas into protected expression. Depending on the circumstances, cumulative protection may also arise under unfair competition and general obligations law.

Collecting societies are established on a sectoral basis under Article 42, FSEK for authors and related rights holders, including literary and scientific works, music, films, fine arts, performers, phonogram producers and broadcasters, to manage and enforce economic rights. Where authorised, they license uses, particularly in public venues and across broadcast and online media, and collect royalties and distribute them to members. The system is non-monopolistic, with multiple societies possible within the same field. Tariffs must comply with statutory criteria and may be subject to oversight by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism. Disputes over tariffs or royalties may be resolved through non-mandatory mediation or arbitration, without prejudice to court proceedings. Societies have standing to bring civil and criminal actions on behalf of members. Educational use is subject to a limited statutory exception rather than a compulsory licensing regime, and societies may monitor its proper application.

Design rights are also protected under the IPL and the relevant implementing regulation. A design refers to the appearance of a product. A design encompasses all arrangements relating to a product and all aspects of its appearance. A “product” means any industrially or manually produced item, excluding computer programs, and includes, inter alia, a complex product and its components, packaging, presentations of multiple items perceived together, graphic symbols and typographic typefaces.

A design is protected under the IPL provided that it is new and has individual character. In this respect, the examination of a design application focuses on whether the design is identical to an existing design and whether it differs from prior designs. For a design to be considered new, it must not have been disclosed to the public anywhere in the world prior to the filing or priority date.

Individual character is assessed by comparing the overall impression created on the informed user by the design in question, whether registered or, in the case of unregistered designs, first disclosed in Türkiye with the overall impression created by earlier designs. An informed user is a person who is familiar with the design, has knowledge of it and possesses a certain degree of experience.

An unregistered design refers to a design that has been disclosed to the public but not registered and is protected for a limited period under the IPL. Unregistered design rights also constitute an industrial property right. Pursuant to Article 69 of the IPL, the term of protection for unregistered designs is three years from the date on which the design was first made available to the public. The exclusive right conferred on the holder of an unregistered design is limited. The right to prohibit is confined to preventing copying of the design. Accordingly, unregistered design rights cannot be enforced against third parties who have independently created the design; the design must have been copied.

A design application is filed with TURKPATENT.

The registration fees are as follows for 2026:

• design application fee (single design): TRY2,070.00;
• additional design application fee:
1. 2nd design: TRY1,674.90;
2. 3rd–5th designs (each): TRY318.70; and
3. 6th and subsequent designs (each): TRY760.00;
• publication fee (per 8 x 8 cm area): TRY280.00;
• deferment of publication fee (per design): TRY280.00; and
• fee for issuance of registration certificate copy or registry extract: TRY2,090.00.

If the application fees are not paid and information evidencing payment is not submitted within the prescribed period, the application shall be deemed not to have been filed.

The registration process comprises formal examination, novelty review, publication, opposition and registration. If no deficiencies are found, the filing date is finalised and the design is registered and published; protection starts from that date.

Refusals may be appealed within two months, and such decisions may be challenged before the Ankara IP Courts within the same period.

Applicants may request deferment of publication at filing. Third parties may oppose within three months on grounds such as lack of protection requirements, bad faith or unauthorised use of IP rights; oppositions are reviewed by TURKPATENT. Even unopposed designs in multiple applications may be invalidated ex officio.

Registered designs are protected for five years, and renewable up to 25 years. Unregistered designs are protected for three years from first public disclosure, which excludes confidential disclosures.

Pursuant to Article 81 of the IPL, design infringement includes, without consent, producing, marketing, selling, offering, commercially using or importing products incorporating a protected or indistinguishably similar design, as well as unauthorised extension or transfer of licence rights and usurpation of the design right.

Where a design is filed or disclosed by a non-rightful owner, the true owner may seek transfer or recognition. If published, the rights holder may bring an infringement action; publication is not required if the infringer is aware, and bad faith may extend liability to pre-publication acts. For unregistered designs, protection arises upon disclosure.

Remedies include determination, prevention and cessation of infringement, removal of effects, damages, seizure (and, where necessary, destruction) of infringing goods, and publication of the decision. Interim measures are also available.

For unregistered designs, unfair competition provisions may additionally apply where imitation creates confusion or unfair advantage.

A design need not be functional or aesthetic. However, only appearance features fall within protection. Elements such as smell, sound or taste, and product functions, are excluded. Features solely dictated by technical function are not protectable.

If only part of a product is technically dictated, the rest may still be protected. Exclusion applies only where all features are functional. This is assessed by whether or not aesthetic considerations were involved in the design process.

Modular designs allowing multiple connections (eg, jigsaw puzzles) are protectable. Partial refusals may be issued for specific elements, provided the remaining parts meet protection criteria.

Technical-function objections are not examined ex officio but may be assessed upon third-party objections.

Turkish law does not provide a single, dedicated statute for trade secrets. Protection arises from a fragmented framework, including the TCO, the unfair competition provisions of the TCC, the TPC, and sector-specific rules. A Draft Law published on 8 April 2026 aims to establish a unified regime aligned with Article 39 of the TRIPS Agreement and the EU Trade Secrets Directive 2016/943.

Both technical and commercial information may qualify as trade secrets, including know-how such as processes, formulae, R&D and business data, namely customer lists, pricing and strategy. Protection depends on cumulative criteria:

• the information must have commercial value;
• it must not be generally known or readily accessible;
• it must be intended to remain confidential; and
• it must confer a competitive advantage by virtue of its secrecy.

The maintenance of trade secret protection in Türkiye is largely contract-driven. The primary safeguard is the employment agreement, typically reinforced by non-disclosure agreements with employees and third parties. Although employees are already bound by a statutory duty of confidentiality under Article 396/4 of the TCO, contractual provisions often strengthen this through deterrents such as liquidated damages or penalty clauses. Disclosure to employees or third parties does not defeat protection, provided access is limited on a need-to-know basis and confidentiality obligations are clearly imposed. Controlled third-party disclosure under NDAs is permissible, and post-termination non-compete clauses are key to preventing misuse, particularly in employee and supplier mobility contexts.

Misappropriation of trade secrets arises from their unlawful acquisition, use or disclosure, including through theft, bribery, breach of confidence, abuse of trust, or inducement of employees or agents to disclose confidential information. Unauthorised exploitation or dissemination of such information, or appropriation of another’s business outputs, typically constitutes unfair competition.

Disputes are primarily addressed under the unfair competition provisions, allowing actions for determination, cessation, prevention, removal of effects and damages. Where contractual confidentiality is breached, claims may also be brought under the general provisions. Employees’ duties arise both by law and contract, and breaches may lead to liability. Employee, joint venture and competitor disputes are assessed within this fragmented framework. In some cases, disclosure of trade secrets may also trigger criminal liability under TPC and unfair competition clauses.

There is no fixed statutory term for trade secret protection. It subsists indefinitely so long as the information remains secret. If the information enters the public domain, whether through accidental disclosure, employee error or inadequate safeguards, its trade secret status is lost and protection ceases. However, this does not preclude claims for damages arising from wrongful disclosure. Likewise, voluntary disclosure without adequate confidentiality measures may terminate protection, as the requirement of secrecy is no longer met.

In practice, trade secret disputes are primarily pursued under the unfair competition regime, with remedies including determination, cessation, removal of effects, damages and interim injunctions.

Criminal sanctions may also apply. Certain acts of unfair competition carry penalties of imprisonment and/or judicial fines, and the unauthorised disclosure of trade secrets obtained by virtue of one’s profession or position may give rise to criminal liability under the TPC. Although proceedings are generally public, courts may, under the Code of Civil Procedure, restrict access to confidential evidence to protect trade secrets. Claims brought solely to obtain a competitor’s confidential information may be dismissed for lack of legal interest or as an abuse of process.

Under Turkish law, the concept of “know-how” is not explicitly and comprehensively defined in a single statute. In practice, know-how is understood as experience-based knowledge, including technical information, production methods, commercial experience and business-specific practical expertise.

Know-how is a broader concept than a trade secret. For information to qualify as a trade secret, it must be confidential, have economic value, and be subject to reasonable measures to preserve its secrecy. Know-how, however, does not necessarily need to meet such strict confidentiality requirements.

Know-how is defined under Article 3(f) of the Competition Authority’s Communiqué No 2002/2 on Vertical Agreements as a package of non-patented, practical, secret, substantial and identified information resulting from the supplier’s experience and testing. The Communiqué further regulates the treatment of know-how within the framework of competition law, particularly in relation to its transfer in technology transfer arrangements.

Pursuant to Article 55 of the TCC, a person acts contrary to honest commercial practices by “unlawfully disclosing production and business secrets; in particular, by exploiting or communicating to others information or trade secrets obtained secretly, without authorisation, or by other unlawful means.”

Accordingly, the unauthorised acquisition and use of know-how by competitors or third parties constitutes unfair competition under Turkish law and may give rise to both civil and criminal proceedings.

Although there is no clear statutory definition under Turkish law granting know-how a specific proprietary status, it is generally understood as a combination of technical knowledge and practical experience relating to a product or service.

Know-how may cover both technical and commercial information, including manufacturing methods, technical processes, formulas, algorithms, as well as customer portfolios, market knowledge, product information and sales strategies.

Know-how does not need to be novel in the patent sense, nor does it necessarily require strict secrecy as in trade secrets. However, it must possess economic value capable of providing a competitive advantage, and typically results from accumulated knowledge and experience.

Pursuant to Article 396 of the TCO, an employee may not use for their own benefit or disclose to third parties any information learned in the course of employment, particularly production and business secrets, during the term of the employment relationship. To the extent necessary for the protection of the employer’s legitimate interests, the employee remains under a duty of confidentiality even after termination of the employment. In this context, the provision does not distinguish whether the information was created by the employee but rather imposes a general duty of confidentiality.

As regards third parties (such as contractors or business partners), there is no overarching statutory rule. Instead, the ownership and transfer of know-how are typically governed by the terms of the relevant agreements. Depending on the contractual arrangements, one or both parties may hold rights over such know-how.

Under the IPL, specific provisions exist determining ownership where designs or patents are created in the course of employment.

In practice, the protection of know-how is generally ensured through contractual arrangements, particularly by incorporating provisions within non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) in commercial relationships. In addition, specific clauses addressing the protection of know-how are often included in the main agreements governing the commercial relationship. In employment contracts, provisions aimed at preventing the use of know-how are typically included both under confidentiality clauses and non-compete obligations.

Under Turkish law, know-how can be assigned or licensed independently of patents or trade secrets, typically through contractual arrangements. There are no specific formal requirements for validity. However, such agreements are usually made in writing for evidentiary purposes. Notarisation or registration is not required.

In practice, the contracts include clear provisions on scope, use and confidentiality, and may be subject to competition law considerations.

Turkish law does not contain a specific regulation on reverse engineering. It is generally accepted that analysing a product that has been placed on the market and obtaining the information embedded in it through reverse engineering is lawful. However, where the product has been obtained unlawfully, acquiring its trade secrets through reverse engineering would likely be considered an infringement of trade secrets and may constitute unfair competition where the relevant conditions are met.

One of the main justifications for the lawfulness of reverse engineering is that, by placing a product on the open market, the manufacturer is deemed to have effectively made both the product and the information contained therein available to the public. If the protection of such information is preferred, this is typically ensured through confidentiality-based contractual arrangements.

Such contractual provisions may regulate ownership and provide for compensation in case the information is disclosed to third parties. While these arrangements are assessed under general legal principles, obligations not to disclose confidential information and not to engage in reverse engineering are characterised as negative obligations. These obligations are generally of a continuing nature, requiring the parties to comply with them uninterruptedly for the agreed duration.

Contractual clauses prohibiting reverse engineering are, in principle, valid and enforceable under Turkish law, provided that they do not contravene mandatory legal provisions.

Turkish law recognises a sui generis database right under Additional Article 8 of the FSEK. Databases created through substantial investment, but lacking originality, are protected for 15 years from disclosure, granting exclusive rights to extract, reproduce, distribute or communicate all or a substantial part. Where a database reflects the author’s own intellectual creation, it qualifies as a protected work under Article 6/11 and benefits from full copyright protection.

Non-public datasets may also qualify as trade secrets if the relevant criteria are met, and contractual safeguards may apply.

Scraping and data extraction are assessed across multiple regimes. They may infringe copyright or database rights, constitute unfair competition through unauthorised use of business outputs, or give rise to contractual liability under the TCC via breach of website terms. Unauthorised access may also trigger criminal liability, and the processing of personal data may engage data protection rules.

Turkish law contains no specific regime on AI inventorship, ownership or legal personality. Under FSEK, authorship is limited to natural persons and legal entities may hold only economic rights. Accordingly, AI-generated outputs are protectable only where they reflect sufficient human intellectual input; purely autonomous outputs fall outside the framework. There is no settled case law, though alignment with European practice is anticipated. In patent law, the inventor must be a natural person. AI is treated as a tool, although ownership may vest in legal entities. In the absence of specific legislation, businesses typically allocate ownership of AI-assisted outputs through contract, which commonly provides that outputs vest in the employer or commissioning party. Where outputs are not disclosed, protection may additionally be structured through trade secret regimes, supplemented by confidentiality undertakings.

As there is no text-and-data-mining exception, only the existing statutory exceptions under FSEK apply. Therefore, only the limited exceptions, limitations and defences outlined in 3.6 Limitations, Exceptions and Defences apply.

The use of trade secrets in training datasets likewise entails risk where the information is unlawfully obtained, used or disclosed, potentially triggering claims under unfair competition and contract law. As noted in 3.7 Copyright Enforcement and Remedies, rights holders may seek injunctions and damages and may also pursue criminal remedies where applicable. Even absent copyright protection, unauthorised use may still be actionable under the TCC.

Pending legislative proposals envisage a licensing-based regime for AI training and data mining, requiring remuneration for the use of copyrighted content.

Under Turkish law, there is currently no AI-specific IP enforcement regime, and infringements involving generative AI are primarily addressed through existing intellectual property and general liability rules.

Rights holders may pursue infringers using AI tools under FSEK, as well as unfair competition provisions. Claims are typically directed against the user/operator of the AI system who deploys the infringing output in commerce.

As regards evidence and causation, courts apply general principles of civil procedure. The claimant must establish infringement, fault and damage. However, in AI-related cases, attribution may become complex where multiple actors (user, developer, platform) are involved. Turkish law has not yet developed a settled approach to evidentiary standards in this context. With respect to secondary liability, recent legislative proposals indicate a trend towards extending responsibility beyond the end-user. In particular, users may be held primarily liable for unlawful acts carried out using AI, while developers and service providers may face enhanced or contributory liability, especially where they enable or fail to prevent unlawful use. However, a clear and comprehensive framework has not yet been fully established.

The choice between different forms of IP protection depends on the nature of the subject matter, the type of protection sought, and the commercial strategy of the rights holder.

Where the subject matter concerns technical solutions or inventions, patent protection is generally preferred, as it provides strong exclusive rights over functionality. However, patents require disclosure and are time-limited and non-renewable. Therefore, where the invention can be kept confidential, businesses may instead prefer trade secret protection.

For product appearance, design protection is typically the primary route, as it protects the visual features of a product. However, where the design also functions as a source identifier, trade mark protection (eg, 3D marks) may be preferred due to its potentially indefinite duration, provided distinctiveness can be established.

In practice, the decision is driven by factors such as duration of protection, evidentiary burden, enforceability, disclosure requirements, and the risk of invalidity.

The protection of an intellectual creation under multiple intellectual property regimes, under different provisions of the same regime, or under both intellectual property law and unfair competition law, is referred to in doctrine as the principle of cumulative protection. Typical examples include the protection of a shape mark also as a design (Article 55 of the IPL) or as a work of fine art (Article 4 of the FSEK).

According to the prevailing view in doctrine, for cumulative protection to apply, the term of protection of the relevant intellectual property right must not have expired. Otherwise, this would effectively circumvent the time-limited nature of IP protection through the indefinite protection afforded by unfair competition rules. A sign not protected as a trade mark under the IPL may nevertheless be protected under unfair competition provisions.

In its decision dated 6 June 2024 (11th Civil Chamber, E. 2022/6756, K. 2024/4798), the Court of Cassation held that, “since trademark infringement was specifically regulated under the (then applicable) Decree-Law No 556, and the relevant provision of the Turkish Commercial Code no longer included references to “trade names, business names, marks or similar signs,” cumulative protection could not be granted”. Accordingly, the Court found that claims based on unfair competition should have been dismissed. In recent years, the Court of Cassation has consistently rejected unfair competition claims in trade mark infringement cases.

In practice, courts assess each right separately and do not automatically extend protection across regimes. Where multiple rights are asserted, courts examine whether the conditions for protection are met under each legal basis and may apply a lex specialis approach, particularly in cases involving overlap between trade mark law and unfair competition. In this context, unfair competition provisions are treated as complementary rather than substitutive and are interpreted restrictively where a specific IP regime already governs the dispute.

Confidential know-how and technical information may be protected as trade secrets while they remain undisclosed and meet the requisite criteria. This protection subsists before filing and continues after a patent application is filed with the TURKPATENT until publication. Publication occurs 18 months from the filing or priority date, or earlier if a grant decision is issued, in which case the application and patent are published together. Upon publication, the invention enters the public domain and ceases to qualify as a trade secret. Protection thereafter relies solely on the patent.

Once disclosed, the information cannot regain trade secret status. Accordingly, following expiry or invalidation of the patent, the invention remains publicly accessible. Only undisclosed ancillary know-how that has been consistently kept confidential may continue to be protected as a trade secret.

A design is defined under Article 55(1) of the IPL as “the appearance of the whole or a part of a product, or of the ornamentation thereon, resulting from features such as lines, shape, form, colour, material or surface texture.” Article 5 of the IPL, which sets out examples of signs capable of constituting a trade mark, also provides that shapes, as well as the form of goods or their packaging, may be registered as trade marks.

In light of the overlap between these provisions, the same subject matter may, in principle, benefit from both trade mark and design protection cumulatively. For an appearance to be protected as a design, it must be new and possess individual character. Where these requirements are not met in respect of two- or three-dimensional shapes, such shapes may nevertheless be protected under trade mark law, provided that they fulfil a source-identifying function.

Under Turkish law, the distinction between trade marks and designs lies primarily in their function. Trade marks serve as a source-identifying function, indicating the commercial origin of goods or services, whereas designs protect the visual appearance of a product. “Trade dress” is not recognised as a separate statutory right but may be protected under unfair competition provisions where the overall appearance of a product creates a risk of confusion. In addition, both regimes exclude features dictated solely by technical function, which cannot be monopolised through either trade mark or design protection.

The intersection of copyright with other intellectual property rights, particularly trade marks and designs, is a frequently encountered phenomenon. This is expressly reflected in Article 58 of the IPL, which provides that design protection under the IPL shall not prejudice protection afforded under FSEK, provided that the relevant conditions are met.

For an intellectual creation to benefit from copyright protection, it must bear the author’s individuality and fall within one of the four categories of works (literary and scientific works, musical works, works of fine art, or cinematographic works). Where such conditions are met, a logo may also benefit from trade mark protection, provided that it possesses distinctive character.

From a trade mark perspective, Article 6 of the IPL stipulates that where a trade mark application contains another person’s name, trade name, photograph, copyright or any other intellectual property right, the application shall be refused upon opposition by the rights holder. In practice, courts have invalidated word and figurative marks incorporating copyrighted elements such as cartoon or comic characters, as well as the titles and logos of books, magazines, films or television series.

In light of the legislative framework and case law in Türkiye, it can be concluded that, where copyright overlaps with trade mark and design rights, rights holders may benefit from protection under both FSEK and the IPL concurrently.

Under Turkish law, claims based on different IP rights may, in principle, be brought within the same proceedings, provided that they arise from the same set of facts. It is common in practice to assert multiple grounds (eg, trade mark infringement, design infringement and unfair competition) cumulatively in a single action.

Where infringement of multiple IP rights is alleged, courts assess each claim independently, examining whether the conditions for protection and infringement are met under each legal regime. If multiple infringements are established, the court may grant remedies on the basis of one or more rights, depending on the circumstances.

However, Turkish law does not permit double recovery. Although claims may be based on different legal grounds, the claimant cannot obtain compensation more than once for the same damage.

In cross-border IP disputes, Turkish law applies the principle of territoriality. Pursuant to the Turkish International Private and Procedural Law No 5718 (MOHUK), intellectual property rights are governed by the law of the country for which protection is sought (lex loci protectionis). Accordingly, courts apply Turkish law where protection is claimed in Türkiye, even if the dispute has foreign elements. In addition, under MOHUK, the parties may, after the infringement has occurred, agree that claims arising from the infringement shall be governed by the law of the forum. In practice, courts assess each IP right on a country-by-country basis, and parallel proceedings in different jurisdictions are common where protection is sought in multiple territories.