Actions brought against decisions rendered by the Re-Examination and Evaluation Board (“Higher Board”) concerning trademark applications constitute an important part of Turkish trademark law practice. In practice, particularly in actions brought following the refusal of an opposition filed by the owner of an earlier trademark, it is common for plaintiffs to seek not only the cancellation of the Higher Board decision but also the invalidation of the trademark at issue if it is…
»
Presidential Decision No. 11031 dated 12 March 2026 (the “New Pricing Decision”) introduced significant changes to the pricing system for medicinal products for human use established under Decision No. 2017/9901 and subsequently amended on several occasions. The New Pricing Decision provided that the provisions of the existing Communiqué on the Pricing of Medicinal Products for Human Use that did not conflict with the New Pricing Decision would continue to apply until a new…
»
Law No. 7584, which was published in the Official Gazette on 20 June 2026 and entered into force on the same date, introduced significant amendments to the provisions of Law No. 4250 on the Monopoly of Spirits and Alcoholic Beverages concerning the advertising and promotion of alcoholic beverages and the use of brands.
The new rules concern support provided by producers, importers and marketers in the alcoholic beverage sector to events, publications and posts; the use of…
»
The “Guideline Regarding the Naming of Human Medicinal Products” (“Guideline”) was published with an announcement dated 31 July 2026 on the official website of the Turkish Medicines and Medical Devices Agency (“Agency”).
According to the information provided in the announcement, the Guideline aims to provide guidance on matters to be taken into account when determining names for medicinal products for human use and outlines the procedures and principles governing the process…
»
The Constitutional Court, in its decision dated 27.01.2026 and numbered 2020/32193, published in the Official Gazette dated 16.06.2026, determined that the administrative fine imposed by the Personal Data Protection Board (the “Board”) on a data controller on grounds that the concept of the ‘purpose for which the data was made public’ is not regulated under the law and administrative fine imposed based on the relevant concept violates the principle of legality of offences and…
»
A final Turkish judgment has held that a trademark owner cannot be charged storage fees arising from the custody of counterfeit goods after they have been seized in criminal proceedings. Significantly, the court found that the trademark owner was the victim of the infringement and that the proper addressee of the storage fees was the owner of the counterfeit goods.
Background
The dispute concerned 264,740 units of counterfeit Colgate toothpaste weighing approximately 27.7…
»
