Home About Us Services Awards Team Insights Career Contact Us TÜRKÇEENGLISH Devin Law & IP — Istanbul
Geographical Indications/Insights

A Geographical Indication Is Not Property — It Is an Obligation

Authors
Uğurcan TekinAlican TekinUğurcan Tekin · Alican Tekin
Published14 August 2026
Reading time9 min
← All Insights
CategoryGeographical Indications
Published14 August 2026
Authors
Uğurcan TekinPartner
Alican TekinPartner
Contents01Two Categories, One Distinguishing Question02Who May Apply — and the One Exception for a Single Producer03The Application Is a Specification, and the Specification Includes Its Own Audit04Article 49: The Duty That Starts at Registration05What Losing the File Actually Looks Like06Protection Without Exclusivity07Why It Cannot Be Sold08The European Route Has Changed Twice in Two Years09Sources
SummaryÖzet

Applications for geographical indications are often prepared with the instincts of trademark practice: secure the name, keep the file, control who uses it. Almost none of those instincts transfer. The Third Book of the Industrial Property Code No. 6769, Articles 33 to 54, builds a collective regime in which the registrant holds the name on behalf of a production community rather than against it, and in which the obligations begin rather than end on the day of registration.

01
Two Categories, One Distinguishing Question

Article 34(1) defines a geographical indication as a sign identifying a product that has become identified with the region, area, locality or country of its origin by reason of a distinctive quality, reputation or other characteristic. It then divides the concept in two.

A designation of origin under Article 34(1)(a) covers products originating in a defined locality, region or, in exceptional cases, a country, whose whole or essential characteristics derive from the natural and human factors particular to that geographical area, and whose production, processing and other operations all take place within its boundaries. A geographical sign of source under Article 34(1)(b) covers products originating in a defined locality, region or country which are identified with that area by reason of a distinctive quality, reputation or other characteristic, and of whose production, processing and other operations at least one takes place within the area.

The distinguishing question is therefore not how strong the connection is but how much of the process happens inside the boundary. All of it, and the file is a designation of origin; at least one stage, and it is a sign of source. Article 34(2) adds that traditional names in everyday use which contain no geographical name may also qualify as either.

Article 34(3) sets out a third and separate category. A traditional speciality name falls outside both of the above and must be shown to have been used traditionally for at least thirty years in the relevant market to describe the product, and to satisfy at least one of two conditions: that it derives from a traditional method of production or processing or from a traditional composition, or that it is produced from traditional raw materials or ingredients.

The dividing line is procedural, not qualitative: all stages inside the boundary, or at least one.
02
Who May Apply — and the One Exception for a Single Producer

Article 36(1) restricts the right to apply to producer groups; public institutions and professional bodies of a public character connected with the product or the geographical area; associations, foundations and cooperatives working in the public interest or authorised to protect the economic interests of their members; and, where a product has a single producer, that producer, on condition that it proves the fact.

The last of those is the exception rather than the route. Article 37(1)(b) makes the proof of sole production a mandatory element of the application, and Article 36(2) defines a producer group as an association of producers of the same product regardless of its legal form or composition — which means an unincorporated group of producers may apply while a single company generally may not.

03
The Application Is a Specification, and the Specification Includes Its Own Audit

Article 37(1) lists what the file must contain: the name and category of the sign with evidence that it meets the definition; a description of the product with the technical evidence of its physical, chemical, microbiological and sensory characteristics; documents defining the boundaries of the geographical area; the method of production together with any local techniques and practices; evidence of the link between the product's quality, reputation or other characteristics and that area; the historical background of the product in the area; the manner of use, including labelling and packaging; and — the element most often underestimated — documents setting out in detail the form of inspection in accordance with Article 49.

That last requirement is not an annexe. The applicant designs the inspection regime, names the body that will carry it out, and lives with both after registration.

04
Article 49: The Duty That Starts at Registration

Article 49(1) defines inspection as covering all activities directed at verifying that use of the registered indication conforms to the characteristics stated in the registration, at the stages of production, offering for sale or distribution, or while the product is on the market. Article 49(2) provides that the inspection is carried out by the inspection body named in the application and whose competence has been approved by the Office, and that any change to the recorded body requires the Office's approval.

Article 49(3) is the operative obligation: inspection reports are submitted to the Office annually from the date the registration was published in the Bulletin, and where there is a complaint the Office may require a report to be submitted before it falls due. Article 49(4) provides that where the examination of a report reveals a deficiency, the registrant is notified and given six months to remedy it, and that if the deficiency is not remedied within that period or the inspection is found not to have been carried out properly, Article 43 applies.

Article 49(5) allows the registrant to recover the cost of inspection from those inspected. Article 49(7) preserves the separate regimes of Law No. 5996 on veterinary services, plant health, food and feed and of other legislation — the Article 49 inspection sits alongside, not instead of, ordinary food safety supervision.

“There is no statutory inspection frequency. The frequency is whatever the specification says it is — which means the applicant sets the standard it will be measured against for the life of the registration.”
05
What Losing the File Actually Looks Like

Article 43 is the provision that makes the regime unlike anything in trademark practice. Where a court decides, or the Office determines of its own motion, that the registrant no longer satisfies the conditions of Articles 36 and 49, the decision or determination is published in the Bulletin. Within three months of that publication, any party meeting the conditions of Article 36 may request a change in the application or registration records. Where no request is made, or none is found suitable, the right lapses; where there are several, the Office accepts the most appropriate.

The sequence deserves attention. A registrant that stops carrying out its inspection duties does not simply lose the protection — it is put at risk of losing the file to a different producer group that is willing to run it. The registration survives; the custodian changes.

The judicial route runs in parallel. Article 50 allows any person with an interest to seek invalidity from the court on three grounds: that the registration fails to meet the conditions of Articles 33, 34, 35, 37 or 39; that it was not made by a person entitled under Article 36; or that the inspection has not been carried out in the manner required by Article 49. The action is brought against the person recorded as registrant, and Article 50(3) provides expressly that the Office is not joined as a party.

06
Protection Without Exclusivity

Article 44(1) provides that protection is obtained through registration. Article 44(2) lists what may be prevented: commercial use, direct or indirect, of the indication or of the emblem required under Article 46 in a way that exploits the reputation of the indication where the product does not carry its characteristics; misleading use or imitation on a product which lacks those characteristics or which evokes the indication, even where the true origin or nature is stated or where terms such as style, type, kind, method or as produced in are used, and even where the name has been translated into another language; misleading statements on packaging, promotional material or documents; and misleading use of the emblem.

The evocation concept familiar from European practice is present in the Turkish text through that second limb and through Article 53(1)(b), which treats misuse, imitation or use evoking the indication as infringement even where the origin is stated or the name is translated. It is not set out under a separate heading, but the substance is there.

Against that stands Article 44(7): the registration of a geographical indication confers no exclusive right on the registrant. Anyone who complies with the conditions recorded in the register may use the name. Article 46(2) makes the emblem mandatory for geographical indications, to be used together with the registered sign on the product or its packaging; Article 46(3) provides for display at the premises where the nature of the product does not permit it; and Article 46(4) provides that use of a traditional speciality name without the emblem falls outside the Code — so for that category the emblem is not compulsory, but use without it is unprotected.

07
Why It Cannot Be Sold

Article 148(1) states that rights in geographical indications and traditional speciality names may not be the subject of licence, assignment, inheritance, attachment or similar legal transactions, and may not be given as security. The exclusion is absolute and it follows from the structure described above. A right that confers no exclusivity on its holder, that is exercised by every producer meeting the specification, and that can be transferred by the Office to a different custodian under Article 43 is not an asset capable of being traded. The registrant is a steward, and stewardship is not alienable.

For a commercial adviser the consequence is practical. A geographical indication does not appear on a balance sheet, cannot be pledged in a financing, and does not pass in a share transfer. Where a producer group is restructured, what has to be preserved is its continuing capacity to meet Articles 36 and 49 — not the ownership of a name.

08
The European Route Has Changed Twice in Two Years

Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 of 11 April 2024, published on 23 April 2024 and in force since 13 May 2024, replaced Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 and brought wine, spirit drinks and agricultural products under a single geographical indications framework. Separately, Regulation (EU) 2023/2411 established a regime for craft and industrial products, applicable since 1 December 2025 — which opens a European route for Turkish craft indications that did not previously exist.

The Turkish presence in the EU register has grown quickly on the back of a deliberate programme: from eight registered Turkish geographical indications in January 2023 to forty-six by August 2026, with a substantial pipeline behind them. Domestically the register passed 1,881 registered products, with 66 added in the first half of 2026 alone.

One caution for anyone preparing a European file: TÜRKPATENT's published guidance on the EU application procedure still refers in places to Regulation No 1151/2012 and Regulation No 668/2014, both superseded. The Office published a new EU application guide on 27 January 2026 reflecting the current framework, and that is the document to work from. The European stage remains six months of Commission examination followed by a three-month opposition period after publication in the Official Journal.

09
Sources
Uğurcan TekinPartnerAlican TekinPartner
Related practice areaIndustrial Property Law→

Related reading

TrademarkProof of Use in Turkish Trademark Oppositions: The Five-Year Test28 August 2026TrademarkTrademark Licence Agreements under Turkish Law: Exclusive and Non-Exclusive Licences Compared28 August 2026TrademarkBad-Faith Trademark Filings in Türkiye: The True Owner's Toolkit28 August 2026