Intellectual Property Practice in Türkiye: Impressions for 2025
The year 2025 did not mark a fundamental transformation in the protection of intellectual property rights in Türkiye; however, it may be described as a period during which practice became more predictable in certain areas. It would be fair to say that judges appointed in recent years have gradually become more adapted to the dynamics of intellectual property law, and this has contributed to a more predictable approach in terms of the reasoning of decisions and the management of proceedings.
Throughout the year a significant number of preliminary injunction decisions were rendered, particularly in trademark infringement disputes across various sectors. Preliminary injunctions remain a crucial mechanism for preventing the expansion of infringements and for protecting the commercial position of rights holders without waiting for the outcome of the main proceedings. Compared to previous years, it can be considered that delays in granting such decisions have largely been overcome. Where the evidence is prepared in a strong and systematic manner, the preliminary injunction mechanism can be used effectively.
Naturally, it would not be accurate to suggest that the practice has become fully consistent. It may still be seen that certain courts adopt different approaches when assessing the standard of proof and the conditions for granting preliminary injunctions. Nevertheless, it can be considered that the overall direction of practice remains positive.
The delays in expert examinations have continued throughout 2025. However, it can be observed that, before the Ankara and İzmir Intellectual and Industrial Property Courts, expert reports are often prepared within relatively short timeframes. In contrast, before the Istanbul Intellectual and Industrial Property Courts, the heavy caseload may create challenges in the effective management of experts’ workload. Even so, it can be considered that close monitoring of the process through the courts helps ensure that the expert phase is completed within a reasonable time.
With respect to the monetary compensation actions, certain structural difficulties continue to exist in damages actions. It is frequently seen that defendants refrain from submitting financial and commercial data, which makes it difficult to calculate the exact amount of damage. In this respect, it may be considered that a more systematic use of sector-based royalty analyses and the development of precedent licensing practices would contribute to more predictable and balanced damage assessments. This area still has potential for further development.
As a separate note, it is frequently stated that bad faith trademark applications constitute a major concern in Türkiye. However, in our view, the approach developed against bad faith applications may now be considered well established. It may be observed that both the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office and the specialized IP courts assess bad faith claims based on concrete criteria, considering factors such as the commercial relationship between the parties, the similarity of the marks, and the timing of the applications. In this respect, it can be considered that Türkiye holds a relatively strong position compared to many other jurisdictions in terms of protection against bad faith registrations.
When it comes to the practice regarding revocation actions based on non-use before the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office, it is also possible to say that, as of 2025, the practise has become more settled. Following the entry into force of the mechanism in 2024, certain uncertainties arose pending the secondary legislation. However, as the number of decisions has increased, it may be observed that evidence of use is examined carefully and that genuine, serious and commercial use is assessed based on concrete criteria. This has contributed to the establishment of a clearer framework for the parties.
It must also be noted that challenges continue in the fight against counterfeiting. It is observed that search and seizure processes within criminal investigations, as well as enforcement stages, leads to major delays. Various trainings and coordination meetings continue to be organized in order to address the practical issues that cause such delays.
In conclusion, it can be considered that 2025 has not been a year of dramatic change in Turkish IP practice. However, it may be observed that stability and predictability have strengthened in certain areas. The effective use of preliminary injunctions, the established approach to bad faith applications, and the increasing clarity in non-use revocation proceedings stand out as strong aspects of the system. At the same time, damages calculations and criminal enforcement processes remain areas open to further improvement.