fbpx

Design Protection in Turkey


Country Specific Issues - Legal System (civil/common law)
Law References
Industrial Property Code No. 6769 of December 22, 2016 (Industrial Property Code)

Regulation on the Implementation of the Industrial Property Code No. 6769 (Implementing Regulation under Industrial Property Code)
Commentary
Turkey has a civil law system. There used to be individual legislations (Decree Laws) for each intellectual property right and registered design rights were protected under the provisions of Decree Law No. 554 of June 24, 1995 on the Protection of Industrial Designs (Industrial Designs Decree Law). However, the new Industrial Property Code no. 6769 of December 22, 2016 (IP Code) entered into force on January 10, 2017 and replaced and repealed the Decree Laws pertaining to intellectual property rights, including the Industrial Designs Decree Law, by bringing all those rights together within the ambit of a single Code. The design chapter (Book III) of the IP Code includes changes which seek to achieve greater compliance with the relevant directives of European Union.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Country specific issues - SSpecific territories within the country
Law References
No applicable law reference
Commentary
There are no specific territories in Turkey.
Case Law
No applicable case law


Origin of design rights - Registration
Articles 55, 56, 64, 65 and 67 of Industrial Property Code

Articles 59 to 66 of Implementing Regulation under Industrial Property Code
Commentary
Both registered and unregistered designs are protected under the provisions of the IP Code. A design that is registered as per the provisions of the IP Code is protected as a registered design. Pursuant to Article 56(1) of the IP Code, the design has to be new and have individual character in order to be protected as a registered design.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Origin of design rights - Use (unregistereddesign right)

Law References
Articles 55, 59 and 69 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
Unregistered designs are protected under the provisions of the IP Code only they are made publicly available in Turkey for the first time. The period of protection is three years as of becoming publicly available. Contrary to registered designs, unregistered designs are protected against only identical or indistinguishably similar designs that are copied from the (protected) unregistered design. If it is not possible for the designer of the latter design, who created the design independently, to know by reasonable means that the protected design has been presented to the public before his own design, the latter design cannot be considered as a copy of the protected design.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Origin of design rights - Administrative requirements - Filing
Law References
Article 61 of Industrial Property Code

Articles 47 to 55 of Implementing Regulation under Industrial Property Code
Commentary
The application for registration has to be filed before the Office. The application can either be paper-based or filed electronically. The language of the application is Turkish.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Origin of design rights - Administrative requirements - Requirementsregarding the application Law References
Article 61 of Industrial Property Code

Articles 47 to 55 of Implementing Regulation under Industrial Property Code
Commentary
An application for registration of a design must be filed with an application form filled electronically, which includes information identifying the applicant(s) and the drawing, painting, graphic, photographic or similar representation of the design suitable for reproduction by publication.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Origin of design rights - Administrative requirements - Multiple applications Law References
Article 61 of Industrial Property Code

Article 55 of Implementing Regulation under Industrial Property Code
Commentary
Multiple embodiments can be included in a multiple design application as different designs. The multiple design application can include no more than 100 designs. In multiple applications, each product on which the design is used or to which it is applied should be included into the same class. If the examiner evaluates that the designs in the multiple design application do not belong to the same class or exceed 100 designs, additional fee is requested and application is divided into separate applications.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Origin of design rights - Administrative requirements - Date of filing

Law References
Article 64 of Industrial Property Code

Articles 59 and 60 of Implementing Regulation under Industrial Property Code
Commentary
The Office shall examine whether the application complies with the conditions specified in Articles 61 and 63 and whether there are any deficiencies. If the Office concludes that there are no deficiencies, the application is accorded the date of filing as the date, hour and minute on which the application was filed originally at the Office or at the body authorized as such by the Office.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Origin of design rights - Administrative requirements - Priority

Law References
Articles 62 and 63 of Industrial Property Code

Articles 56 to 58 of Implementing Regulation under Industrial Property Code
Commentary
Natural or legal persons or their legal successors in title who are nationals of a state that is party to the Paris Convention or the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization or who are domiciled or have an active business in such member state will enjoy a right of priority of six months for the purpose of filing an application for obtaining a registration certificate in Turkey in respect of the same design from the date of filing a valid application at the authorized bodies of such state.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Origin of design rights - Administrative requirements - Registration andpublication

Law References
Articles 65 and 66 of Industrial Property Code

Articles 61 to 63 of Implementing Regulation under Industrial Property Code
Commentary
After a design application is filed with the Office, it is examined on formalities and absolute grounds. Within the scope of this examination, the Office also conducts a novelty examination. If the application is found to be eligible for registration as a result of the ex-officio examination, it is published in the Official Designs Bulletin, pending oppositions, for three months. If no opposition is lodged within this period, the application is granted with a registration certificate.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Origin of design rights - Administrative requirements - Fees

Law References
Article 161 of Industrial Property Code

Article 53 of Implementing Regulation under Industrial Property Code
Commentary
The official fee for filing a single design application online is around EUR 20. The official fee for filing an application for each additional design after the first one is EUR 9. The official fee for claiming priority and filing the priority document online is EUR 30. The official fee for the renewal of a design registration for one design is around EUR 60 and for each additional design of a multiple design registration is around EUR 8 (for requests submitted online). The official fee for obtaining a certified copy of registration (through an online request) is around EUR 27. The disbursements for these processes would be around EUR 40.
Case Law
No applicable case law


Design right requirements - Object of protection - Appearance of aproduct
Law References
Article 55 of Industrial Property Code

Articles 50 and 51 of Implementing Regulation under Industrial Property Code
Commentary
Pursuant to Article 55/1 of the IP Code, ‘design’ means the appearance of the whole or part of a product or its ornamentation resulting from its various features. Designs are protected in Turkey based on the ‘views’; thus the view of which part is included in the application, that part is protected. It is not obligatory to include a certain view as it depends on the applicant.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Design right requirements - Object of protection - Whole or part of aproduct / complexproducts

Law References
Articles 55 and 56 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
Design of a product that is part of a complex item shall be protected, provided that the design of the part itself is new and has individual character.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Design right requirements - Object of protection - Relevantfeatures

Law References
Article 55 of Industrial Property Code

Articles 50 and 51 of Implementing Regulation under Industrial Property Code
Commentary
The appearance of a product results from its features. According to the IP Code, design means the appearance of the whole or part of a product or its ornamentation resulting from various features such as lines, colour, texture, form, shape and material. If special protection is requested for colour, surface shading, surface texture or materials, they can be claimed by disclosing those features in the views and (optionally) also mentioning them in the written description.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Design right requirements - Object of protection - Dimensions(two-dimensional/three-dimensional)

Law References
Article 53 of Implementing Regulation under Industrial Property Code
Commentary
Both two-dimensional and three-dimensional appearances can qualify for design right protection.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Design right requirements - Object of protection - Specifics

Law References
No applicable law reference
Commentary
There are no further remarkable specifics as to the object of protection that have not been mentioned in the previous sections ‘Appearance of a product’, ‘Whole or part of a product / complex products’, ‘Relevant features’ and ‘Dimensions’.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Design right requirements - Requirements for protection - The informeduser
Law References
Article 56 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
The IP Code refers to the viewpoint of the ‘informed user’ in determining whether the design have an individual character. The design shall be understood to have an individual character if the overall impression it creates on the informed user is different from the overall impression created on the same user by any design. The definition of the informed user does not take place in the IP Code, but according to the precedents and the doctrine, informed user is not a designer or technical expert, but rather someone with a professional or personal interest in the design, shows a high degree of attention, has a relatively high degree of knowledge of the sector in question and uses the product in accordance with its purposes.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Design right requirements - Requirements for protection - Individualcharacter
Law References
Articles 56 and 58 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
A design shall be understood to have an individual character if the overall impression it creates on the informed user is different from the overall impression created on the same user by any design that is made public before the application or the priority date of the design (for registered designs and design applications), with which they shall be compared or the date when the design is first presented to public (for unregistered designs). With the IP Code, this criterion for individual character has been changed to ‘difference’ from ‘significant difference’. In the assessment of the individual character, the degree of freedom of the designer in developing the design shall also be taken into consideration.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Design right requirements - Requirements for protection - Overall impression of the design - Visible features
No applicable law reference
Commentary
The overall impression of the design serves two core functions. First, it decides whether or not the design for which registration is sought has individual character. Second, the overall impression of the design determines the scope of protection once the design right has been obtained.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Design right requirements - Requirements for protection - Overall impression of the design - Exclusion of features dictatedby their
technicalfunction

Law References
Article 58 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
For avoidance of hampering the development of further designs to be applied to same type of products in the same area and preventing the protection provided by the design right to exceed what is actually necessary, visual characteristics of a product necessitated by its technical function fall outside the scope of protection.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Design right requirements - Requirements for protection - Overall impression of the design - Exclusion of interconnections

Law References
Article 58 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
For avoidance of hampering the development of further designs to be applied to interconnection products, visual characteristics of a product which is required to be produced in a certain form and size in order to enable the product where the design is used or to which it is applied, to be mechanically mounted on or connected to another product, fall outside the scope of protection.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Design right requirements - Requirements for protection - Overall impression of the design - Impression on the informeduser

Law References
Article 56 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
The IP Code refers to the viewpoint of the ‘informed user’ in determining whether the design have an individual character. The design shall be understood to have an individual character if the overall impression it creates on the informed user is different from the overall impression created on the same user by any design. The definition of the informed user does not take place in the IP Code, but according to the precedents and the doctrine, informed user is not a designer or technical expert, but rather someone with a professional or personal interest in the design, shows a high degree of attention, has a relatively high degree of knowledge of the sector in question and uses the product in accordance with its purposes.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Design right requirements - Requirements for protection - Overall impression of the design - Consideration of degree of freedomin
developing

Law References
Articles 56 and 58 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
In evaluating the scope of protection of the design and whether it has individual character, the degree of freedom of the designer in developing the design is taken into consideration.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Design right requirements - Requirements for protection - Overall impression of the design - Assessment of prior art

Law References
Article 56 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
In order to assess the novelty and the individual character of the design, the design is compared to the designs of prior art. Designs of prior art include those that have been made public in Turkey or in the world before the application date or if priority is claimed, the date of priority of the design (for registered designs and design applications), with which they shall be compared or the date when the design is first presented to public (for unregistered designs).
Case Law
No applicable case law

Design right requirements - Novelty - Grace period
Law References
Articles 56 and 57 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
Only new designs are to be protected under the IP Code. A design shall only be considered new if before the date of reference (the application date or the date of priority for registered designs and design applications and the date the design is first presented to public for unregistered designs), no identical design has been made available to the public in the world. If the designs differ only in terms of small details, they shall be regarded as identical.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Design right requirements - Novelty - Disclosure - Making available to the public

Law References
Article 57 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
The ways in which a design can be made available to public are exemplified under Article 57/1 of the IP Code, including the activities of use, publication, description, promotion, exhibiting of the design and putting on the marked through means such as sales. The disclosure of the design to a third person with the condition of confidentiality shall not be regarded as presentation to the public.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Design right requirements - Novelty - Disclosure - Privilege of the designer

Law References
Article 57 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
Article 57/2 of the IP Code constitutes a specific privilege of the designer with regard to disclosure. A designer is given a period of grace in which he or she as well as his or her successor in title has the opportunity to make the design available to the public without any negative effect on the novelty or the individual character. The same applies if a third party made the design available to the public with the approval of the designer or his or her successor in title. The period of grace covers the 12 months preceding the date of filing of the application or if a priority is claimed, twelve month period preceding the date of priority.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Design right requirements - Novelty - Disclosure - Abuse

Law References
Article 57 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
Article 57/2 of the IP Code provides for a disclosure not to be taken into consideration for the purpose of applying the novelty and individual character tests if the design has been disclosed by a third party following an abusive act against the designer or his or her successor in title. For such disclosure not to be taken into account for the purpose of applying the novelty and individual character tests, it has to occur during the twelve-month period preceding the date of the filing of the application or the date of priority.
Case Law
No applicable case law


Grounds for non-protection - Designs dictatedby technicalfunction
Law References
Article 58 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
For avoidance of hampering the development of further designs to be applied to same type of products in the same area and preventing the protection provided by the design right to exceed what is actually necessary, visual characteristics of a product necessitated by its technical function fall outside the scope of protection.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Grounds for non-protection - Designs of interconnections

Law References
Article 58 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
For avoidance of hampering the development of further designs to be applied to interconnection products, visual characteristics of a product which is required to be produced in a certain form and size in order to enable the product where the design is used or to which it is applied, to be mechanically mounted on or connected to another product, fall outside the scope of protection.
Case Law
No applicable case law

 

Designs contrary to public policy or morality
Law References
Article 58 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
Pursuant to Article 58/4(a) of the IP Code, designs contrary to public order and general morality principles are outside the scope of protection. Pursuant to Article 58/4(ç), designs, which include
Case Law
No applicable case law


Scope of protection - Exclusive rightto use the design for aproduct

Law References
Article 59 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
Under the IP Code, all rights arising from the design, including the right to use the design, belong exclusively to the owner of the design.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Scope of protection - Exclusive rightto preventthe use of anyotherthirdparty

Law References
Article 59 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
In addition to the right to use the design, the design right also confers the right to prevent the use of any other third party. Pursuant to Article 59/1 of the IP Code, third parties, without the consent of the design right holder, cannot produce, put on the market, sell, offer to make an agreement for, import, put to commercial use or keep in stock for this purposes the design or the product on which the design is used. On the other hand, the design owner cannot exercise his or her right in respect of the use of the design after three years from the first putting on the market of the design, for repair purposes and upon the fulfillment of certain conditions.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Scope of protection - No different overall impression - Impression on the informeduser
Law References
Article 56 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
The IP Code refers to the viewpoint of the ‘informed user’ in determining whether the design have an individual character. The design shall be understood to have an individual character if the overall impression it creates on the informed user is different from the overall impression created on the same user by any design. The definition of the informed user does not take place in the IP Code, but according to the precedents and the doctrine, informed user is not a designer or technical expert, but rather someone with a professional or personal interest in the design, shows a high degree of attention, has a relatively high degree of knowledge of the sector in question and uses the product in accordance with its purposes.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Scope of protection - No different overall impression - Consideration of degree of freedomin developing

Law References
Articles 56 and 58 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
In evaluating the scope of protection of the design and whether it has individual character, the degree of freedom of the designer in developing the design is taken into consideration.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Scope of protection - No different overall impression - Assessment of prior art

Law References
Article 56 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
In order to assess the novelty and the individual character of the design, the design is compared to the designs of prior art. Designs of prior art include those that have been made public in Turkey or in the world before the application date or if priority is claimed, the date of priority of the design (for registered designs and design applications), with which they shall be compared or the date when the design is first presented to public (for unregistered designs).
Case Law
No applicable case law

Scope of protection - Moralrights

Law References
Article 61 of Industrial Property Code

Article 49 of Implementing Regulation under Industrial Property Code 
Commentary
The application for the registration of a design shall include the identity and contact information of the designer(s). The designer has the right, against the applicant for or the holder of the design right, to be cited as the designer in the priority documents, in the publication and in the register.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Entitlement - Designer 

Law References
Article 70 of Industrial Property Code

Article 49 of Implementing Regulation under Industrial Property Code
Commentary
The designer is entitled to the design right and thus entitled to apply for registration of the design.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Entitlement - Successor
Law References
Articles 70 and 148 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
Pursuant to Article 70/1 of the IP Code, the right to the design shall vest in the designer or his or her legal successor in title.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Entitlement - Joint development

Law References
Article 70 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
If more than one person is the designer, the joint proprietorship shall be determined in accordance with the agreement between the parties. If no such agreement exists, the joint proprietorship provisions under the Turkish Civil Code shall apply.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Entitlement - Employer

Law References
Articles 73 and 74 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
As per Article 73/1 of the IP Code, where designs are developed by the employees during the business relationship as per the activity they are liable for or based mostly on the experience and work of the business, unless otherwise specified by the contract or understood from the nature of the work, the design right will vest with their employers.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Entitlement - Entitlementclaims

Law References
Article 71 and 72 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
If an application for registration has been made or the design has been registered (for design applications/registered designs) or presented to public (for unregistered designs) by a person who is not the genuine right owner, the person who claims to be the genuine right owner, without prejudice to any other rights and claims arising from the design right, can request from the court the transfer of the design right ownership to him or her or to be recognized as the design owner.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Entitlement - Rightto be cited

Law References
Article 61 of Industrial Property Code

Article 49 of Implementing Regulation under Industrial Property Code
Commentary
The designer has the right, against the applicant for or the holder of the design right, to be cited as the designer in the priority documents, in the publication and in the register.
Case Law
No applicable case law


Limitations and exceptions of protection - Statutory restrictions - Private andnon-commercial use
Law References
Article 59 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
Pursuant to Article 59/3(a) of the IP Code, the rights conferred by a design shall not extend to acts done privately and for non-commercial purposes.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Limitations and exceptions of protection - Statutory restrictions - Educational andscientific use Law References
Article 59 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
According to Article 59/3(c) of the IP Code, the rights conferred by a design shall not extend to acts of reproduction for the purposes of making citations or teaching, provided that such acts are compatible with fair trade practices and do not prejudice the normal exploitation of the design and the source of the design is mentioned.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Limitations and exceptions of protection - Statutory restrictions - Furtherrestrictions

Law References
Article 59 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
Pursuant to Article 59/3(ç), in order not to impair transnational traffic and transport, the right owner is not entitled to exercise his or her rights in respect of the equipment on ships and aircraft registered in another country when these temporarily enter the territory of the Turkish Republic. The restriction also applies to the importation of spare parts and accessories for the purpose of repairing such crafts and the execution of repairs on ships and aircrafts.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Limitations and exceptions of protection - Exhaustion

Law References
Article 152 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
After the product subject to design protection has been put on the market anywhere in the world by the holder of the design right or by third parties with the consent of the holder of the design right, the acts relating to the product fall outside the scope of design protection. Whereas the late (now repealed) Industrial Designs Decree Law no. 554 (and the other Decree Laws) previously adopted the domestic exhaustion principle, this has been changed with the IP Code, which has adopted the international exhaustion principle for all IP rights, including the designs.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Limitations and exceptions of protection - Rights of prior use

Law References
Article 60 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
Pursuant to Article 60/1 of the IP Code, third parties, who have used, in good faith, domestically for commercial purposes or have made serious and real preparations to do so, a design that has been developed independently of a registered design and which falls into scope of protection of the registered design, before the application date of the registered design, shall be granted the right to use the design based on prior use. Such right to use the design shall be limited to the preparations made by the third parties and is granted in a degree to meet the reasonable needs of the relevant undertaking. The rights arising from prior use shall be recorded in the Register and published.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Limitations and exceptions of protection - Government use

Law References
No applicable law reference
Commentary
Turkish Law makes no express provision for this.
Case Law
No applicable case law


Lapse of design law rights - Expiration
Law References
Article 69 of Industrial Property Code

Article 67 of Implementing Regulation under Industrial Property Code
Commentary
For registered designs, the period of protection is five years as of the date of application for registration, which can be renewed every five years, up to a total of twenty five years. For unregistered designs, the period of protection is three years as of the date the design is first presented to public.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Lapse of design law rights - Invalidity

Law References
Articles 77 to 79 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
A registered design shall be declared invalid by the court if it does not fall within the description of the ‘design’ as per the IP Code; if it is not new and does not have an individual character; if it is contrary to the principles of public order or general morality; if it results from a technical function; if it includes
Case Law
No applicable case law

Lapse of design law rights - Revocation
Law References
Article 80 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
The design will be revoked upon the expiration of the protection period and in case no renewal request is made or the request for cancellation made by the right owner.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Lapse of design law rights - Waiver

Law References
Article 80 of Industrial Property Code

Article 70 of Implementing Regulation under Industrial Property Code
Commentary
The owner of the design application or registration can waive his or her rights on the design partially or wholly. The request for a waiver shall be filed in writing to the Office. Waiver shall have effect as of the date of recordal in the Registry and it is also published.
Case Law
No applicable case law


Design right as a property right - Applicable law
Law References
Article 148 of Industrial Property Code

Articles125 to 127 of Implementing Regulation under Industrial Property Code
Commentary
Similar to other intellectual property rights, design rights can be subject to legal transactions. The rights arising from a design application or registration can be transferred to third parties and are also subject to inheritance. These rights can be charged as security, and be levied in execution. Related provisions of the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure and the Bankruptcy and Execution Law shall have effect with respect to security rights and execution. The rights arising from a design application or registration can also be subject to an exclusive or non-exclusive license to be effective within the total or part of the territory of national boundaries.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Design right as a property right - Assigning Design rights
Law References
Article 148 of Industrial Property Code

Article125 of Implementing Regulation under Industrial Property Code
Commentary
The rights arising from a design application or a registered design can be transferred to third parties. Such transfer is recorded in the Register and published upon payment of the fee prescribed in the Implementing Regulation. The effects will enter into force vis-à-vis third parties as of the publication date.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Design right as a property right - Transition and transfer - Independenttransfer
Law References
Article 148 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
The transfer of the rights arising from a design can be made independently from the relevant enterprise.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Design right as a property right - Transition and transfer - Independenttransfer

Law References
No applicable law reference
Commentary
Turkish Law makes no express provision for this as there is only a single territory.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Design right as a property right - Transition and transfer - Requirementthattransferitrecordedinwriting

Law References
Article 148 of Industrial Property Code

Article125 of Implementing Regulation under Industrial Property Code
Commentary
Transactions concerning intellectual property rights, including designs, are subject to a writing requirement. Transfer agreements should also be notarized in order to be valid.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Design right as a property right - Transition and transfer - Requirementthattransferisrecordedin the register

Law References
Article 148 of Industrial Property Code

Article125 of Implementing Regulation under Industrial Property Code
Commentary
The transfer of a design application or registration is recorded in the Register and published, upon the request of one of the parties, on the condition of payment of the relevant fee and fulfillment of other conditions laid down in the Implementing Regulation. The registration and publication of the transfer is essential for it to have legal effect on third parties as the effects will enter into force vis-à-vis third parties as of the publication date of the transfer.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Design right as a property right - Transition and transfer - Effect on thirdparties

Law References
Article 148 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
The effects of the transfer shall enter into force vis-à-vis third parties as of the publication date. Rights arising from legal transactions that are not recorded in the Register, including transfer, cannot be asserted against bona fide third parties.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Design right as a property right - Pledges and other limited rights - Formal Requirements
Law References
Article 148 of Industrial Property Code

Article127 of Implementing Regulation under Industrial Property Code
Commentary
Transactions concerning intellectual property rights, including designs, are subject to a writing requirement. Accordingly, entering into a written agreement will give rise to the rights in security. However, for the imposition of the pledge to have effect on third parties, it should be recorded in the Register and published.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Design right as a property right - Pledges and other limited rights - Effect on thirdparties

Law References
Article 148 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
The effects of the pledge shall enter into force vis-à-vis third parties as of the publication date. Rights arising from legal transactions that are not recorded in the Register, including pledges, cannot be asserted against bona fide third parties.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Design right as a property right - Licenses - Nature andcontents of alicense

Law References
Articles 75, 76, 148 and 158 of Industrial Property Code

Article 69 of Implementing Regulation under Industrial Property Code
Commentary
The rights arising from a design application or registration can be subject to a license contract. The license must be understood to be non-exclusive, unless provided otherwise in the contract. Accordingly, the licensor can use the design personally and may grant licenses to third parties on the same design. In the case of an exclusive license, the licensor cannot grant licenses to other parties and cannot personally use the design, unless this right is explicitly preserved.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Design right as a property right - Licenses - Limitations

Law References
No applicable law reference
Commentary
A license is usually granted concerning a specific region or regions. In this respect the licensor undertakes not to make claims based on their exclusive rights arising from their intellectual property rights against the licensee within the borders of the restricted region. If, in the scope of the license agreement, no regional restriction is stated, the licensee has the right to use the license rights within the national borders of the country where the agreement is signed. If the license is restricted through a regional determination, the licensor must produce the licensed products within the borders of this region and sell the products within the borders of the determined region.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Design right as a property right - Licenses - Powers of the licensee

Law References
Articles 75 and 158 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
The licensee can take any kind of action relating to the use of the design, throughout the period of the license. Additionally, in case of an infringement of the design rights, unless provided otherwise by the contract, the holder of an exclusive license can institute all legal proceedings that have been made available to the right owner by the IP Code. The holder of a non-exclusive license, in case his or her right to institute legal proceedings due to infringement has not been explicitly restricted in the contract, should notify the right owner and request him or her to institute the required proceedings in case of infringement. If the right owner refuses or fails to institute the proceedings within three months as of the date of notification, the holder of the non-exclusive license can institute the proceedings in his or her name and to a degree which his or her interests necessitate, by also including the notification. In such case, the holder of the non-exclusive license should notify the right owner that the proceedings have been instituted.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Design right as a property right - Licenses - Effects vis-à-visthirdparties

Law References
Articles 148 and 158 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
Licensing basically effects third parties only insofar as not only the licensor is entitled to sue, but also the holder of an exclusive license can institute in his own name all legal proceedings which have been made available to the right owner in case of an infringement of the design right.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Design right as a property right - Licenses - Formalrequirements

Law References
Article 148 of Industrial Property Code

Article 69 of Implementing Regulation under Industrial Property Code
Commentary
Licensing contracts shall be in writing and upon the request of one of the parties shall be entered in the Register and published. Pursuant to Article 69 of the Implementing Regulation, the licensing contract containing the declarations and the signatures of the licensee and the licensor, the name of the design subject to license, the registration number of the design, the duration and the fees of the contract (if there is any) and in case the license contract is in a foreign language, its translation into Turkish approved by a certified translator must be submitted, along with the request form and the information showing the payment of the relevant fee, for the license to be recorded in the Registry.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Design right as a property right - Insolvency

Law References
Article 184 of Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code No. 2004 of June 09, 1932 (Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code).
Commentary
In case of the insolvency of the right owner, the registered design rights are transferred to the bankruptcy estate.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Design right as a property right - Valuation

Law References
No applicable law reference
Commentary
Valuation of design rights is as complex and difficult as for all intellectual property rights. Given the lack of a general market value the basic method is expert evaluation in every single case.
Case Law
No applicable case law


Enforcement - Remedies - Injunctive relief
Law References
Article 159 of Industrial Property Code

Articles 389 to 399 406 of Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 of January 12, 2011 (Code of Civil Procedure)
Commentary
The IP Code provides special provisions for preliminary measures for the prevention of ongoing or anticipated infringements of rights. Where there is a likelihood of infringement and irreparable damages, the courts may issue preliminary injunctions.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Enforcement - Remedies - Damages andcompensation

Law References
Articles 149 to 151 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
The IP Code regulates three types of action for damages, namely: damages for pecuniary loss; damages for mental anguish and damages for loss of prestige.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Enforcement - Remedies - Removalfromcirculation

Law References
Article 149 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
In case of an infringement of the design right, the right owner can request from the court the prohibition and prevention of the infringing acts. This naturally encompasses a possible request from the owner of the design right for the recall of all infringing products and their removal from circulation to prevent further sales of those products.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Enforcement - Remedies - Destruction

Law References
Article 149 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
In case of an infringement of the design right, the right owner can request from the court the destruction of the confiscated products and equipment if it is essential for the preclusion of acts of infringement or the alteration of these products and equipment, the costs of which shall be met by the infringer.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Enforcement - Remedies - Surrender of goods
Law References
Article 149 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
In case of an infringement of the design right, the right owner can request from the court the confiscation of the products constituting infringement and the equipment used directly to produce such products, in a way that would not prevent manufacturing of products other than the infringing products. The right owner can also request proprietorship over the confiscated products and equipment.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Enforcement - Remedies - Surrender of profits

Law References
Article 151 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
The injury suffered by the design right holder includes not only the value of the actual loss but also the income loss incurred due to infringement of the design rights. The loss of income shall be calculated in accordance with one of the following evaluation methods, to be selected by the design right holder who has suffered the injury: according to the possible income that the design right holder would have generated if the competition of the infringing party did not exist; according to the net income generated by the infringing party from the use of the design; according to a license fee that would have been paid if the party infringing the design right would have utilized the design under a legal licensing contract.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Enforcement - Remedies - Information regarding source

Law References
No applicable law reference
Commentary
Turkish Law makes no express provision for this.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Enforcement - Remedies - Rightto publication

Law References
Article 149 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
In case of an infringement of the design right, the right owner, in case there is a justified reason or interest, can request from the court the publication of the finalized judgment in full or in summary in a daily paper or by other means, the costs of which shall be met by the other party or the notification of the finalized judgment to the interested parties. In case this request is accepted, the form and scope of publication shall be determined in the judgment. The right to publication shall lapse if not requested within three months commencing from the date the judgment is finalized.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Enforcement - Remedies - Unjustifiedenrichment/furtherremedies

Law References
Article 149 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
In case of an infringement of the design right, if the right owner has requested both compensation and proprietorship over the confiscated products and equipment, the value of the products and equipments shall be deducted from the compensation awarded. If the value of the products turns out to be above the compensation value awarded, the right owner shall repay the balance to the infringing party.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Enforcement - Remedies - Declaratory judgment

Law References
Articles 149 and 154 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
In case of an infringement of the design right, the right owner can request from the court to determine whether or not the relevant acts constitute infringement. Any interested party can also institute proceedings against the right owner to obtain a judgment of non-infringement. Before instituting such proceedings, the interested party can first request the right owner to provide his or her opinion on whether or not a commercial or industrial activity he or she has undertaken or planning to undertake or serious and actual attempts he or she has made for these means in Turkey constitute infringement. In case no response is given by the right owner within one month as of the date of notification of the request or if the right owner’s answer is not accepted by the interested party, the interested party can institute proceedings against the right owner to obtain a judgment of non-infringement. However, such notification is not a pre-condition for instituting court proceedings.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Enforcement - Statute of limitation

Law References
Article 157 of Industrial Property Code

Article 72 of Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 of January 11, 2011 (Turkish Code of Obligations)
Commentary
Pursuant to Article 157 of the IP Code, time limit provisions of the Code of Obligations shall have effect concerning the time limits for claims relating to infringement of design rights. As the infringement of design rights constitutes a tortuous act, Article 72 of the Turkish Code of Obligations shall govern the infringement claims. Accordingly, infringement claims shall lapse after a period of two years commencing from the date the right owner finds out about the infringement/damage and the identity of the infringer and in any case, after a period of ten years commencing from the date the act of infringement occurred.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Enforcement - Liabilityof intermediaries

Law References
No applicable law reference
Commentary
There is not any explicit provision relating to the liability of intermediaries in the IP Code.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Enforcement - Criminal law enforcement - Applicable law
Law References
No applicable law reference
Commentary
Criminal remedies provided under the repealed Industrial Designs Decree Law were cancelled by the Constitutional Court in 2009. The IP Code also does not provide criminal remedies for design infringement cases. Therefore, criminal remedies are not applicable for design infringement cases.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Enforcement - Criminal law enforcement - Sanctions
Law References
No applicable law reference
Commentary
Turkish Law makes no express provision for this.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Enforcement - Criminal law enforcement - Procedure

Law References
No applicable law reference
Commentary
Turkish Law makes no express provision for this.
Case Law
No applicable case law


Litigation and procedural aspects - Applicable procedural law
Law References
Articles 156, 157 and 159 of Industrial Property Code

Articles 389 to 406 of Code of Civil Procedure
Commentary
The procedural rules governing infringement and invalidation claims are mainly set out in Articles 156 and 157 of the IP Code.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Litigation and procedural aspects - Plaintiff - Proprietor
Law References
Articles 70 and 149 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
Plaintiff to a lawsuit based on the infringement of a design right is mainly the right owner. Pursuant to Article 70/1 of the IP Code, the owner of the right is the designer or his or her legal successor in title.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Litigation and procedural aspects - Plaintiff - Co-proprietor

Law References
Article 149 of Industrial Property Code

Articles 688 to 700 of Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 of November 22, 2001 (Turkish Civil Code)
Commentary
If the design application or registration belongs to more than one person, the proprietorship on the right shall be determined as per the agreement between the parties. If no such agreement exists, the joint proprietorship provisions of the Turkish Civil Code shall apply. Under the IP Code, the joint proprietor can institute legal proceedings against third parties in case of infringements of the joint design right. In such case, the joint proprietor should notify the other proprietors within one month, in order to enable them to attend the proceedings.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Litigation and procedural aspects - Plaintiff - Licensee

Law References
Article 158 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
In case of an infringement of the design rights, unless provided otherwise by the contract, the holder of an exclusive license can institute all legal proceedings that have been made available to the right owner by the IP Code. The holder of a non-exclusive license, in case his or her right to institute legal proceedings due to infringement has not been explicitly restricted in the contract, should notify the right owner and request him or her to institute the required proceedings in case of infringement. If the right owner refuses or fails to institute the proceedings within three months as of the date of notification, the holder of the non-exclusive license can institute the proceedings in his or her name and to a degree which his or her interests necessitate, by also including the notification. In such case, the holder of the non-exclusive license should notify the right owner that the proceedings have been instituted.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Litigation and procedural aspects - Plaintiff - Other plaintiffs

Law References
Article 78 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
Invalidity claims can be asserted by any person of interest on the basis that the design does not fall within the description provided in the IP Code; it is not new and does not have individual character; it is contrary to the principles of public order and general morality; it results from a technical function;
Case Law
No applicable case law

Litigation and procedural aspects - Defendant - Infringer
Law References
Article 81 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
Defendants to infringement claims are infringers (the licensee in case the rights acquired by the licensing contract are transferred to third parties or expended without the consent of the design right holder).
Case Law
No applicable case law

Litigation and procedural aspects - Defendant - Other defendants

Law References
Article 48 of Industrial Designs Decree Law
Commentary
There is not any explicit provision relating to the liability of intermediaries in the IP Code. Therefore there is not any other defendants.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Litigation and procedural aspects - Competent court - International jurisdiction
Law References
No applicable law reference
Commentary
Turkish Law makes no express provision for this.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Litigation and procedural aspects - Competent court - Territorial jurisdiction

Law References
Article 156 of Industrial Property Code

Article 6 of Code of Civil Procedure
Commentary
Territorial jurisdiction regarding infringement and invalidation claims is governed by Article 156 of the IP Code. In respect of infringement claims, the competent court in terms of territorial jurisdiction is the court of the plaintiff’s domicile or the place where the infringing act was committed or the place where the infringing act had effect. Pursuant to Article 6 of Code of Civil Procedure, the lawsuit can also be filed before the court of the defendant’s domicile.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Litigation and procedural aspects - Competent court - Venue

Law References
Article 156 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
In respect of subject matter competence, special courts to be established by the Ministry of Justice shall have jurisdiction for all of the actions and claims provisioned by the IP Code.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Litigation and procedural aspects - Competent court - Lis pendensrule
Law References
No applicable law reference
Commentary
Turkish Law makes no express provision for this.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Litigation and procedural aspects - Types of action - Actionsforrevocation orinvalidation
Law References
Articles 78 and 79 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
For obtaining declaration of invalidation of registered design rights, an invalidation action should be filed before the competent civil courts.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Litigation and procedural aspects - Types of action - Actionsregarding infringement

Law References
Articles 149 to 151 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
In case of an infringement of design rights the right owner or unless otherwise stated in the contract, the holder of an exclusive license is entitled to bring variety of claims including an action for an injunction before the competent civil courts.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Litigation and procedural aspects - Types of action - Invalidityproceedings before the registration office

Law References
No applicable law reference
Commentary
Turkish Law makes no express provision for this since invalidation proceedings are held by the competent civil courts.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Litigation and procedural aspects - Provisional measures - Preliminary injunction
Law References
Article 159 of Industrial Property Code

Articles 389 to 406 of Code of Civil Procedure
Commentary
The IP Code provides special provisions for preliminary measures for the prevention of ongoing or anticipated infringements of rights. Where there is a likelihood of infringement and irreparable damages, the courts may issue preliminary injunctions.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Litigation and procedural aspects - Provisional measures - Exparte proceedings

Law References
Article 159 of Industrial Property Code

Articles 389 to 406 of Code of Civil Procedure
Commentary
Preliminary injunctions may be sought and may be granted prior to or during the substantive proceedings relating to intellectual property. Injunctions granted prior to commencement of substantive proceedings will automatically lapse if substantive proceedings are not commenced within two weeks of executing the injunction. Preliminary injunction can be maintained until the final judgment becomes procedurally final or may be altered by the judge at any appropriate time during the trial. Bank guarantees or other form or guarantees may be submitted in lieu of a preliminary injunction subject to the court’s decision.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Litigation and procedural aspects - Provisional measures - Attachment

Law References
Articles 32 to 41, 78 to 105 of Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code
Commentary
Attachment is granted to secure enforcement of the monetary claims the court grants as a result of the infringement action. It is not required for the court’s decision to be finalized in order to obtain attachment against the infringer.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Litigation and procedural aspects - Evidence - Burden of proof

Law References
Article 190 of Code of Civil Procedure
Commentary
According to the general rules of Turkish Civil procedure Law, the burden of proof basically lies with the party to whom the facts to be proven are beneficial. Thus, the right owner or licensee as claimants has to show and prove all facts supporting the infringement of an existing design right as well as additional conditions for their claim, such as the incurrence of damage. If the infringements of an existing design right is proven the burden of proof regarding any defense lies with the infringer.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Litigation and procedural aspects - Evidence - Standardof evidence

Law References
Articles 187, 198, 200 to 239, 303 of Code of Civil Procedure
Commentary
Turkish Civil Procedure Law requires proof of all facts of the case. Pursuant to Article 198 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the judge has discretion in its evaluation of the evidence adduced (discretionary evidence). However, certain claims have to be proven with certain types of evidence, the conditions, effects and the result of which are expressly laid down in the legislation. That type of evidence is called conclusive evidence and the judge does not have discretion to evaluate any other type of evidence in respect of the claims that should statutorily be proved with conclusive evidence. In case the claim is proven with conclusive evidence, the judge does not have discretion to question the accuracy of the fact asserted in the claim.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Litigation and procedural aspects - Evidence - Means of evidence

Law References
Articles 192, 199 to 293, 303 of Code of Civil Procedure
Commentary
Admissible means of evidence under Turkish civil procedure law encompasses all types of evidence, involving those that have not been envisaged in the legislation, except for the facts that require the admission of conclusive evidence to be proven.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Litigation and procedural aspects - Evidence - Preservation of evidence

Law References
Article 400 of Code of Civil Procedure
Commentary
In case there is a possibility that the evidence will be lost unless preserved immediately or submission of such evidence will become considerably difficult, the parties can request from the court the preservation of such evidence to be submitted in the future in an ongoing case or in a case that has not yet been brought to court.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Litigation and procedural aspects - Evidence - Protection ofconfidential information

Law References
No applicable law reference
Commentary
Under Turkish civil procedure law there are no specific rules as to the protection of confidential information. Nevertheless, pursuant to general provisions, it is possible to request from the court the protection of information to be submitted on the basis that it is confidential or a trade secret. In such case, only the court, experts and to the extent allowed by the court, the opposing party can examine the information protected.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Litigation and procedural aspects - Evidence - Presumption of validity

Law References
Articles 204, 205, 208 to 214 of Code of Civil Procedure
Commentary
It is presumed that notary deeds, court judgments and deeds that are acknowledged before the court or deemed by the court to have been issued by the opponent to the deed are valid, unless proven otherwise.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Litigation and procedural aspects - Alternative dispute resolution

Law References
No applicable law reference
Commentary
There are no arbitral institutions in Turkey that are specific to Intellectual Property rights disputes. But, it is accepted that regardless of its nature, design disputes that can be settled between the parties are generally regarded as being arbitral. Design arbitration addresses principally contractual rights and obligations, breaches and infringements under license agreements. Arbitration is not applied as often as it could be for the settlement of design disputes.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Litigation and procedural aspects - Length and costs of different proceedings - Actionsforrevocation orinvalidation
Law References
No applicable law reference
Commentary
Actions for revocation and invalidation of the design rights are subject to civil law and held before the competent civil courts. The proceedings last around 12 to 18 months at the first instance level and an additional 18 to 24 months at the appeal.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Litigation and procedural aspects - Length and costs of different proceedings - Actionsregarding infringement

Law References
No applicable law reference
Commentary
Actions regarding infringement of design rights are subject to civil law and held before the competent civil courts. The proceedings last around 12 to 18 months at the first instance level and an additional 18 to 24 months at the appeal.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Litigation and procedural aspects - Length and costs of different proceedings - Invalidityproceedings before the registration office

Law References
No applicable law reference
Commentary
Turkish Law makes no express provision for this since invalidation proceedings are held by the competent civil courts.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Litigation and procedural aspects - Length and costs of different proceedings - Preliminary injunction proceedings

Law References
No applicable law reference
Commentary
The length of the preliminary injunction proceedings primarily depends on whether the court refers the case to the experts and usually last about 1 to 4 months.
Case Law
No applicable case law


Customs measures - Applicable law
Law References
No applicable law reference
Commentary
Turkey has an intellectual property rights protection system in the customs areas that is compatible with European Union (EU) regulations and the international agreements to which Turkey is a party. The rules for customs measures in respect of intellectual property rights are primarily laid down in Article 57 of Customs Law and Articles 100 to 111 of Customs Regulations.
Case Law
No applicable case law
Customs measures - Scope

Law References
Article 159 of Industrial Property Code

Article 57 of Customs Law
Commentary
Customs authorities can seize suspected goods and can grant a temporary suspension decision in respect of shipments made subject to importation and exportation, as well as transit trade and shipments located in any Turkish free trade zones.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Customs measures - Application forcustoms action

Law References
Article 103 of Customs Regulations
Commentary
There is an official system for protection of intellectual property rights by Turkish Customs that requires only a single application, for each and every intellectual property right, to be filed through the website of General Directorate of Customs in Ankara. These intellectual property applications cover all shipments made subject to importation and exportation, as well as transit trade and shipments located in any Turkish free trade zones.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Customs measures - Action by the customs authority

Law References
Article 102 of Customs Regulations
Commentary
Customs authorities can seize suspected goods ex officio, after which Customs inform the rights holders, invite them to check the relevant shipments and take any necessary action. Customs authorities that discover suspected goods entering the country will grant a temporary suspension decision and the rights holder will be requested to check the products, obtain samples or take pictures of those products and provide a preliminary injunction decision within ten working days starting from the notification of the decision. The intellectual property owners are entitled to request an additional 10-day period should the process requires more time, such as in the cases where the actual examination of the sample takes longer. However, such extension requests can be rejected.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Customs measures - Follow-measures

Law References
No applicable law reference
Commentary
Turkish Law makes no express provision for this.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Customs measures - Transit

Law References
Article 57 of Customs Law

Article 100 of Customs Regulations
Commentary
Pursuant to Article 57 of Customs Law and Article 101 of Customs Regulation, customs authorities can grant a temporary suspension decision in respect of shipments made subject to importation and exportation, as well as transit trade and shipments located in any Turkish free trade zones.
Case Law
No applicable case law
Customs measures - Application inmore than one jurisdictions atthe same time

Law References
No applicable law reference
Commentary
Turkish Law makes no express provision for this.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Customs measures - Othermeans of enforcement at national borders

Law References
No applicable law reference
Commentary
Turkish Law makes no express provision for this.
Case Law
No applicable case law

 

Interference with other rights - Trademark law
Law References
Industrial Property Code, Book I: Trademark
Commentary
Objects of design rights protection can be two or three-dimensional designs which can also be objects of trademark protection as long as they have distinctive character and are capable of being represented on the register in a manner which enables determination of the subject matter of protection clearly and precisely. Thus, protection can be sought on basis of Trademark Law as well as on basis of Design Law.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Interference with other rights - Copyrightlaw

Law References
Articles 1 and 4 of Law No. 5846 of December 5, 1951 on Intellectual and Artistic Works (Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works)
Commentary
Design Law and Copyright Law do not exclude each other although both laws govern the protection of aesthetics.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Interference with other rights - Patentlaw
Law References
Articles 58 and 82 of Industrial Property Code
Commentary
According to Article 82 of the IP Code, aesthetic creations are excluded from patent protection as patent rights are technical property rights. Thus, if and to the extent to which protection is desired merely for the aesthetics of an object Patent Law is not applicable. Reciprocally Article 58 of the IP Code excludes from design right protection features dictated solely by a technical function.
Case Law
No applicable case law

Interference with other rights - Unfaircompetition law

Law References
Articles 54 to 63 of Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 of January 13, 2011 (Turkish Commercial Code)
Commentary
Infringement of intellectual property rights also constitutes unfair competition under the Turkish Commercial Code. Therefore, infringement of designs rights can also be subject to unfair competition claims as per the Turkish Commercial Code.
Case Law
No applicable case law


General civil or common law
Law References
Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 of November 22, 2001 (Turkish Civil Code)

Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 of January 12, 2011 (Code of Civil Procedure)
Commentary
The provisions of the Turkish Civil Code and the Code of Civil Procedure shall govern issues that have not been expressly regulated under the IP Code, such as the procedural statute of limitation in respect of civil proceedings and the standard, means and preservation of evidence, as well as the aspects of preliminary injunction that have not been expressly dealt with under the IP Code.
Case Law
No applicable case law

First published by Wolters Kluwer, in 19.10.2021

Find more insights

Share