Home About Us Services Awards Team Insights Career Contact Us TÜRKÇEENGLISH Devin Law & IP — Istanbul
← All Insights
CategoryE-Commerce & IP
Published21 July 2026
Authors
Uğurcan TekinPartner
Alican TekinPartner

Domain Name Disputes under ".tr": The Blind Spot for Pre-2022 Registrations

On 14 September 2022 the administration of ".tr" domain names passed from the Middle East Technical University to the Information and Communication Technologies Authority through TRABİS, the ".tr" Network Information System. On the same day the documentary requirement for com.tr, net.tr and org.tr was abolished and those extensions moved to first-come, first-served allocation. Both changes were overdue. Together they also removed the filter that had, for more than twenty years, made cybersquatting on com.tr comparatively difficult.

The scale of what followed is visible in the register. At the end of 2025 there were approximately 1.3 million active ".tr" domains, of which 988,743 were com.tr, against roughly 460,000 active domains before September 2022. For trademark proprietors the practical question is which of those registrations can be challenged administratively and which cannot — and the answer is less obvious than it appears.

Three Cumulative Conditions

Article 25(1) of the Internet Domain Names Regulation sets out the requirements for recourse to the dispute resolution mechanism. The domain in dispute must be identical or similar to a trademark, trade name, business name or other distinctive sign owned or used in commerce by the complainant; the party who obtained the allocation must have no legal right or connection in respect of that domain; and the domain must have been allocated or used in bad faith by its holder. The three conditions are cumulative.

The first condition is materially wider than its UDRP counterpart. Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the ICANN policy requires rights in a trademark or service mark. Article 25(1)(a) extends the basis to trade names, business names and other distinctive signs. A Turkish company whose commercial identity rests on a registered trade name rather than a registered trademark has standing under the ".tr" mechanism that it would not have under UDRP.

The wider standing under Article 25(1)(a) cuts both ways: a respondent's earlier trade name is a legitimate interest.

That breadth cuts in both directions, and a published decision illustrates it. In a final award of 21 November 2025 concerning elkon.com.tr, the sole panellist appointed through the Istanbul Arbitration Centre accepted that the similarity requirement under Article 25(1)(a) was met, but found that the respondent held a legitimate interest arising from a trade name registered earlier than the complainant's, and rejected the complaint for failure to satisfy Article 25(1)(b) and (c). The same provision that grants standing to unregistered commercial identity also supplies the defence.

The Transitional Provision

Provisional Article 1(9) of the Regulation provides that the alternative dispute resolution mechanism defined in Chapter Six of the Regulation is not available for domain names allocated before TRABİS became operational; but that where such a domain has been renewed after TRABİS became operational, recourse to the mechanism is available. A parallel provision appears in the Communiqué on the Dispute Resolution Mechanism.

“A domain allocated in 2015 and running on a term that has not yet come up for renewal cannot be attacked through the dispute resolution mechanism at all. The only route to it is a court.”

This is the single most consequential provision for a proprietor auditing its exposure, and it produces a counter-intuitive result. The domains most likely to have been squatted under the old documentary regime — those obtained by parties with a tenuous documentary basis before 2022 — are precisely the ones outside the mechanism, unless and until they are renewed. Under Article 8(5) a domain is allocated for between one and five years, so a five-year term taken in 2021 does not come up for renewal until 2026. The audit question is therefore not only whether a domain infringes, but when it was allocated and whether it has been renewed since 14 September 2022.

How the Mechanism Works

Complaints are filed with a dispute resolution service provider authorised by the Authority. Three providers currently hold authorisation: the Information Technologies and Internet Security Association, the TOBBUYUM Mediation and Dispute Resolution Centre, and the Istanbul Arbitration Centre. A complainant may not file the same matter with more than one provider.

The Communiqué sets short periods throughout. Deficiencies in the complaint are cured within five days; the complaint is transmitted to the respondent within three days; the response is filed within ten days; and under Article 14(1) the panellist or panel decides within fifteen days of the completion of that process, with up to five days of additional time available. The decision is transmitted to the parties, the Authority and the registrar, and published, within one day. Panels of three decide by simple majority and abstention is not permitted.

Under Article 26 of the Regulation, panellists must have experience in intellectual property law, trademark law, commercial law or information technology law, and must file a declaration of independence and impartiality before beginning work. Decisions are made on the documents; there is no hearing.

Fees are set by reference to a statutory ceiling rather than a published tariff. Article 20 of the Communiqué fixes the maximum panellist fee at 1,000 Turkish lira, increased each year by the revaluation rate, with the provider's own fee set at half the panellist fee. The current figures must be taken from the relevant provider, not from the text.

Cancellation, Transfer, and What Stops Enforcement

Article 27(1) of the Regulation empowers the panellist or panel to order cancellation of the domain, transfer of the domain to the complainant, or rejection of the complaint, in line with the complainant's request. The structure mirrors UDRP: the remedy sought must be pleaded.

Enforcement is governed by Article 15 of the Communiqué, and it contains a drafting inconsistency that should be treated conservatively. Paragraph 1 provides that the decision is implemented immediately unless, within fifteen days of notification of the decision to the parties or at an earlier stage of the process, it is notified to the provider that an action has been brought and an interim injunction obtained. Paragraph 2 states the same rule with a period of ten days. The safe assumption is ten.

The substantive point is more important than the discrepancy. Bringing an action is not enough. Both the action and the interim injunction must be notified to the provider. Under UDRP, paragraph 4(k), the registrar waits ten business days and stays implementation on documentary proof that proceedings have been commenced — no injunction is required. A respondent advised on the basis of UDRP practice will lose the domain while its court file is pending.

Where UDRP Applies and Where It Does Not

UDRP does not apply to ".tr". It is a country-code top-level domain outside the ICANN mandate that makes UDRP compulsory for generic top-level domains, and it operates its own national mechanism. WIPO provides dispute services for eighty-seven country-code domains; ".tr" is not among them. In practice this means that a proprietor facing both markaniz.com and markaniz.com.tr is running two separate proceedings under two different sets of rules, with two different standards for what stops enforcement.

The UDRP side remains the busier of the two. WIPO recorded 6,168 cases in 2024 and 6,282 in 2025, the highest figure in the twenty-five years of the policy. Filing fees at the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center have not changed since 2002: 1,500 US dollars for a single panellist and 4,000 for a three-member panel, for one to five domain names, rising to 2,000 and 5,000 for six to ten. WIPO puts the average time to decision at approximately two months.

The Court Route and Its Statutory Basis

Where the mechanism is unavailable — most importantly under Provisional Article 1(9) — or where damages are sought, the claim is a court claim. Article 7(3)(d) of the Industrial Property Code No. 6769 provides that the proprietor may prohibit use of an identical or similar sign on the internet in the form of a domain name, routing code, keyword or similar, in a manner creating a commercial impression, provided the user has no right or legitimate connection in respect of the sign. For an unregistered sign the basis is unfair competition under Articles 54 and 55 of the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102, and in particular Article 55(1)(a)(4), which addresses measures leading to confusion with another's goods, products, activities or business.

One point on interim relief is worth stating plainly because it is a recurring source of wasted applications. Article 9 of Law No. 5651, which provided for removal of content and blocking of access where personality rights were infringed, never extended to trademark infringement — and the provision was in any event annulled by the Constitutional Court, with effect from 10 October 2024, and has not been replaced at the time of writing. The correct application is to the civil court for intellectual and industrial property rights under Article 159 of the Industrial Property Code, which expressly contemplates interim measures preventing and stopping acts constituting infringement.

Sources

Related practice areaIndustrial Property Law→

Related reading

E-Commerce & IPIntellectual and Industrial Property Infringements on E-Commerce Platforms14 February 2026TrademarkThe Quietest Way to Lose a Right: Renewal Calendars and Bulletin Watch26 August 2026TrademarkThe Chain of Title: Why One Unnotarised Assignment Voids Everything After It25 August 2026