IP Litigation · 28 August 2026

Trademark Invalidity Actions in Türkiye: Grounds, Acquiescence and the Difference from Administrative Revocation

A registered trademark is not always safe. A defect that existed at the moment of registration can lead to the mark being declared invalid by court judgment. The invalidity action is the vehicle for raising that defect. The Industrial Property Code No. 6769 governs the grounds of invalidity, the persons entitled to sue, and the loss of rights through acquiescence. This article examines the invalidity regime and how it differs from the administrative revocation route.

Uğurcan Tekin · İnci ÖzçilsalDevin Law & IP

Read Article →

Trademark · 28 August 2026

Proof of Use in Turkish Trademark Oppositions: The Five-Year Test

Under Article 19/2 of the Turkish Industrial Property Code, an opponent whose trademark has been registered for more than five years must, upon the applicant's request, prove genuine use of that mark in Türkiye. Where proof fails, the opposition fails with it. This article examines how the proof-of-use mechanism works, what counts as genuine use, and how both sides should prepare for it.

Uğurcan Tekin · Alican TekinDevin Law & IP

Read Article →

Trademark · 28 August 2026

Trademark Licence Agreements under Turkish Law: Exclusive and Non-Exclusive Licences Compared

A trademark licence is the principal tool for monetising a mark without parting with it. Yet licence relationships built without regard to the licensing provisions of the Industrial Property Code No. 6769 expose both licensor and licensee to serious risk. This article covers the types of licence, the written-form requirement, recordal with the registry and the licensee's standing to sue.

Uğurcan Tekin · Alican TekinDevin Law & IP

Read Article →

Trademark · 28 August 2026

Bad-Faith Trademark Filings in Türkiye: The True Owner's Toolkit

Those who try to register someone else's mark, a sign learned through a business relationship, or a name known in the market are treated as bad-faith applicants under Turkish trademark law. The Industrial Property Code No. 6769 keeps both the opposition and the invalidity route open against them. This article examines the concept of bad faith, its typical patterns, and the legal tools available to the true owner.

Uğurcan Tekin · İnci ÖzçilsalDevin Law & IP

Read Article →

Trademark · 28 August 2026

Protection of Well-Known Trademarks in Türkiye: When Does Protection Cross Class Boundaries?

Trademark protection is, as a rule, confined to the goods and services covered by the registration. For well-known marks, the Industrial Property Code No. 6769 crosses that boundary through two distinct mechanisms. This article examines the protection of well-known marks within the meaning of the Paris Convention and the beyond-class protection tied to reputation acquired in Türkiye, and sets out the differences between the two.

Uğurcan Tekin · Beyza ErdemirDevin Law & IP

Read Article →

Patent · 28 August 2026

Employee Inventions under Turkish Law: Who Owns the Invention, and What Is It Worth?

A significant share of Turkish patent filings rests on inventions developed by employees in the course of their employment. The employee-invention provisions of the Industrial Property Code No. 6769 regulate in detail who owns the invention, how the employer claims it, and what compensation the employee is owed. This article covers the service invention and free invention distinction, the notification and claim mechanism, and the question of compensation.

Uğurcan Tekin · Mehmet Kerem KüçükDevin Law & IP

Read Article →

E-Commerce & IP · 28 August 2026

Trademark Protection on E-Commerce Platforms: From Complaint Mechanisms to the Power of Registration

The centre of gravity of anti-counterfeiting has shifted from physical markets to e-commerce platforms. Platform complaint mechanisms can deliver fast results, but almost all of them require a registered trademark right to rely on. This article covers in-platform complaint procedures, the legal position of intermediary service providers, and the strategic value of registration in e-commerce.

Uğurcan Tekin · Şevval Ezgi DemirDevin Law & IP

Read Article →

Trademark · 28 August 2026

The Priority Right: The Invisible Calendar of International Filing Strategy

A first filing in one country gives its owner a head start in every other country for a defined period. The priority right born of the Paris Convention lasts six months for trademarks and designs and twelve months for patents and utility models. Managed well, these periods form the backbone of a global protection strategy; missed, they cause losses that cannot be repaired. This article covers how priority works and how to use it strategically.

Uğurcan Tekin · Mehmet Kerem KüçükDevin Law & IP

Read Article →

Trademark · 28 August 2026

Trade Name versus Trademark in Türkiye: Two Registries, One Market

A trade name is registered with the trade registry, a trademark with the registry kept by the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office. Two separate registry systems operating side by side in the same market create a frequent zone of conflict: the company carrying a term in its trade name meets the business that registered the same term as a trademark. This article covers the differences between the two rights and the principles for resolving the conflict.

Uğurcan Tekin · Beyza ErdemirDevin Law & IP

Read Article →

Trademark · 28 August 2026

The UDRP: A Global Arbitral Route against Domain Name Piracy

A domain name identical to your trademark has been registered by someone else and parked with a for-sale notice. The globally accepted way to recover it without going to court is ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. This article covers the three cumulative conditions of a UDRP complaint, how the procedure runs, and how disputes differ under the .tr extension.

Uğurcan Tekin · Şevval Ezgi DemirDevin Law & IP

Read Article →

IP Litigation · 27 August 2026

Preliminary Injunctions and Evidence Preservation in Turkish Trademark Infringement Litigation

Trademark infringement actions take time. The infringement, meanwhile, continues throughout the proceedings: counterfeit goods keep selling, and the mark's customer base keeps being misled. Two instruments available at the very start of the dispute therefore matter as much as the action itself. A preliminary injunction stops the infringement before judgment; evidence preservation secures proof that would otherwise disappear. This article examines the conditions, the deadlines and the practical strategy of both.

Uğurcan Tekin · İnci ÖzçilsalDevin Law & IP

Read Article →

Authorship of AI-Generated Content under Turkish Copyright Law

Generative AI tools are now in everyday commercial use for text, images, music and software. Their spread has surfaced a fundamental legal question: is an AI output a work at all, and if so, who is its author? The Turkish Copyright Act ties authorship to human creativity, which makes the protection of purely prompted output doubtful. And content that is not protected may be used freely by anyone, competitors included. This article examines the current framework and its practical consequences for companies.

Uğurcan Tekin · Beyza ErdemirDevin Law & IP

Read Article →

Trademark · 26 August 2026

The Quietest Way to Lose a Right: Renewal Calendars and Bulletin Watch

A trademark lost in court leaves a reasoned judgment in the file. A trademark lost to a missed renewal window leaves nothing at all. That is what portfolio administration is actually about: most rights are not lost in disputes, but on calendars nobody was watching.

Uğurcan Tekin · Alican TekinDevin Law & IP

Read Article →

Maritime & IP · 26 August 2026

Yacht Design Agreements: Class Approval, Flag State Rules and the Buildability Warranty

A yacht design agreement does not fit the mould of an ordinary contract for work. The project born at the drawing board must pass a classification society's scrutiny, enter a flag state's registry, be insured and actually be built at a shipyard. The heart of the contract therefore beats not in the aesthetic clauses but in the technical warranties: whose obligation is class approval, at what stage do flag state rules apply, and who pays for a calculation error? A framework distilled from practice.

Uğurcan Tekin · Şevval Ezgi DemirDevin Law & IP

Read Article →

Trademark · 25 August 2026

The Chain of Title: Why One Unnotarised Assignment Voids Everything After It

Under Article 148(4) of the Industrial Property Code, notarisation is not a formality of the assignment of an industrial property right — it is a condition of its validity. A single link in a chain of title executed without it is void, and every transfer built on top of that link inherits the defect.

Uğurcan Tekin · Alican TekinDevin Law & IP

Read Article →

Trademark · 18 August 2026

Administrative Revocation of Trademarks: A First Assessment of the TÜRKPATENT Route

Since 10 January 2024 the power to revoke a registered trademark has rested with TÜRKPATENT rather than the courts, and since 15 March 2025 there has been a procedure to exercise it. The two together have produced something that looks administrative but behaves adversarially — and, at a filing cost of more than seventy thousand lira, is no longer the cheap alternative to litigation it was expected to be.

Uğurcan Tekin · Alican TekinDevin Law & IP

Read Article →

Geographical Indications · 14 August 2026

A Geographical Indication Is Not Property — It Is an Obligation

Article 44(7) of the Industrial Property Code states plainly that registration of a geographical indication confers no exclusive right on the registrant. Article 148(1) adds that the right cannot be licensed, assigned, inherited, attached or given as security. What the registrant acquires is not an asset but a supervisory duty — and one that can be taken away and given to somebody else.

Uğurcan Tekin · Alican TekinDevin Law & IP

Read Article →

Trademark · 11 August 2026

Opposing a Trademark Application: The Two-Month Window and the Use Defence

Two months from publication in the Bulletin is not a deadline for filing an opposition. It is a deadline for filing an opposition, stating its grounds in full, and having the fee paid and evidenced — and a grounds set that is incomplete when the window closes cannot be completed afterwards, at the Board or anywhere else.

Uğurcan Tekin · Alican TekinDevin Law & IP

Read Article →

Patent · 7 August 2026

Where the Claim Ends: Scope, Equivalents and What the File Says About You

In June 2025 the Enlarged Board of Appeal held that the description and drawings must always be consulted when interpreting a claim, not only where the claim is unclear. Article 89(1) of the Industrial Property Code has said exactly that, without qualification, since 2017. The convergence matters for anyone drafting a claim intended to work in both systems.

Uğurcan Tekin · Alican TekinDevin Law & IP

Read Article →

Industrial Design · 4 August 2026

Registering an Industrial Design: What the Twelve-Month Grace Period Really Costs

Article 57(2) of the Industrial Property Code protects a design that has already been shown to the public for twelve months. What it does not do is stop the clock that started running the moment the design was shown — and for a design first disclosed in Türkiye, that clock has three years on it, not twelve months.

Uğurcan Tekin · Alican TekinDevin Law & IP

Read Article →

Patent · 31 July 2026

Utility Model or Patent: What the Cheaper Right Actually Costs

A utility model is granted without any assessment of inventive step and cannot be opposed before the Office once granted. Both facts are usually presented as advantages. They are the same fact seen from two sides: nobody has tested the right, and the first test it faces will be a court.

Uğurcan Tekin · Alican TekinDevin Law & IP

Read Article →

Trademark · 28 July 2026

The Madrid Protocol: Is the Fifth Year Really the End of the Risk?

An international registration becomes independent of its basic mark after five years. What the rule does not say — and what Rule 22 of the Regulations does say — is that a cancellation action started inside those five years continues to threaten the international registration long after the fifth anniversary has passed.

Uğurcan Tekin · Alican TekinDevin Law & IP

Read Article →

E-Commerce & IP · 21 July 2026

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

Türkiye's dispute resolution mechanism for ".tr" domains is faster and broader than UDRP in one respect that matters — it protects trade names and business names, not only trademarks. It also contains a transitional provision that puts every domain allocated before 14 September 2022, and never renewed since, entirely beyond its reach.

Uğurcan Tekin · Alican TekinDevin Law & IP

Read Article →

Data Protection · 18 June 2026

Workplace CCTV Systems: The Authority's Public Announcement of 8 June 2026

In its Public Announcement of 8 June 2026 the Personal Data Protection Authority drew a clear line between camera use for security purposes and surveillance directed at employee performance, efficiency or conduct. Assessed alongside Board decisions, Council of State case law and European data protection standards, the announcement operates as a compliance guide requiring data controllers to reassess existing systems.

Uğurcan Tekin · İnci Özçilsal · Beyza ErdemirDevin Law & IP

Read Article →

Data Protection · 16 June 2026

The Constitutional Court’s Viennalife Judgment: Publicly Disclosed Personal Data and the Principle of Legality

The Constitutional Court did not rule on whether the Data Protection Board’s “intention to disclose” doctrine is right or wrong as a matter of data protection law. It held something narrower and far more consequential: a criterion that does not appear in the statute cannot, through interpretation alone, be turned into the basis of an administrative fine.

Uğurcan Tekin · İnci ÖzçilsalDevin Law & IP

Read Article →

Regulatory · 14 June 2026

Türkiye’s First Climate Law Adopted by the Grand National Assembly

Türkiye has enacted its inaugural Climate Law — a major legislative achievement in the pursuit of environmental sustainability and reduced carbon emissions. The Law restructures existing environmental and energy policy, establishes the Climate Change Presidency as a central coordinating body, assigns substantial responsibilities to municipal authorities, and introduces an Emission Trading System together with a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism.

Uğurcan Tekin · İnci ÖzçilsalDevin Law & IP

Read Article →

Data Protection · 31 March 2026

Sharing Data With Third Parties and the Rules Governing Debt Payment Processes

Debt information is not merely economic data; it discloses an individual’s financial position and is therefore private information requiring legal protection. Being a spouse, parent, sibling or friend does not alter third-party status before a data controller — and a third party’s right to pay a debt is not a right to learn its amount.

Uğurcan Tekin · İnci ÖzçilsalDevin Law & IP

Read Article →

Corporate · 26 March 2026

Expulsion of a Shareholder in Two-Shareholder Limited Companies After the Constitutional Court's Judgment of 17 March 2026

The Constitutional Court annulled, in respect of two-shareholder limited companies, the provisions making an application for expulsion dependent on a general assembly resolution taken by an aggravated quorum — restoring an effective remedy where the decision-making mechanism was structurally deadlocked.

Uğurcan Tekin · İnci Özçilsal · Beyza ErdemirDevin Law & IP

Read Article →

Data Protection · 24 March 2026

Cybersecurity Law No. 7545: Centralised Governance, Audit and Sanctions Regime

Cybersecurity Law No. 7545 abandons a recommendation-based approach and establishes a centralised governance structure with a high-deterrence sanctions regime. Assessed alongside the EU Cybersecurity Act and the Cyber Resilience Act, the Law brings cyber risk management from the IT department to the board agenda.

Uğurcan Tekin · İnci ÖzçilsalDevin Law & IP

Read Article →

Data Protection · 19 March 2026

Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Workplace: Risks, Responsibilities and Compliance Strategies

Data entered into generative AI tools generally constitutes personal data processing and frequently a cross-border transfer. Prohibition-led policies push employees toward 'Shadow AI'; the Authority's guidance favours clear boundaries, technical and administrative measures, human oversight and training.

Uğurcan Tekin · İnci Özçilsal · Beyza ErdemirDevin Law & IP

Read Article →

Media & Advertising · 12 March 2026

Advertising Board Decisions — Meeting No. 365: Sectoral and Thematic Assessment

A sectoral analysis of the decisions taken at the meeting of the Advertising Board of the Ministry of Trade dated 13 January 2026 and numbered 365 — covering communication services, consumer durables and technology, food and food supplements, and a broad range of other goods and services.

Uğurcan Tekin · İnci Özçilsal · Beyza ErdemirDevin Law & IP

Read Article →

Trademark · 26 February 2026

New Rules on the Classification of Goods and Services in Trademark Applications

TÜRKPATENT Communiqué No. 2026/2, published in the Official Gazette of 26 February 2026, repeals the 2024 Communiqué and reassigns a series of goods between classes. The amendments directly affect filing strategy in the optical, textile, automotive, sanitary-ware and technology sectors.

Uğurcan Tekin · Alican Tekin · Mehmet Kerem KüçükDevin Law & IP

Read Article →

Regulatory · 16 February 2026

Amendment on Fees Chargeable to Consumers in Food and Beverage Services

The Regulation Amending the Price Tag Regulation, published in the Official Gazette of 30 January 2026, expressly prohibits service charges, table charges, cover charges and similar items in restaurants, cafés and comparable establishments — and the Ministry has already begun sanctioning indirect circumvention.

Uğurcan Tekin · Beyza Erdemir · Sıla UçarDevin Law & IP

Read Article →

Trademark · 14 February 2026

Opinions and Criticisms on the Practical Application of Article 6/3 of the Industrial Property Code

Article 6/3 of the Industrial Property Code is a narrow but vital exception to the registration principle, protecting the genuine right holder who has actually used an unregistered sign in trade. In practice, however, court-appointed experts increasingly extend that protection far beyond the classes in which the sign has ever been used — effectively legislating from the expert report and eroding the legal certainty of registered proprietors.

Uğurcan Tekin · Alican Tekin · İnci ÖzçilsalDevin Law & IP

Read Article →

Data Protection · 14 February 2026

The Turkish Data Protection Board’s Ex Officio and On-Site Inspection Powers

The Turkish Data Protection Board does not depend on complaints. Drawing on its own findings, press reports, notifications and social media, it opens investigations of its own motion — and, where written submissions fall short, it goes on site. This article maps both powers through the Board’s published decisions and sets out what data controllers should have ready before an inspection begins.

Uğurcan Tekin · İnci ÖzçilsalDevin Law & IP

Read Article →

Protection of Unregistered Copyright Against Trademark Applications

Copyright arises the moment a work is created — registration is a means of proof, not a condition of the right. Yet in opposition proceedings a registration certificate is still routinely demanded. The Ankara Regional Court of Appeal’s finalised TOSPİK judgment breaks with that formalism and opens the way for creators without certificates to defend their characters against opportunistic trademark filings.

Uğurcan Tekin · Alican Tekin · Beyza ErdemirDevin Law & IP

Read Article →

E-Commerce & IP · 14 February 2026

Intellectual and Industrial Property Infringements on E-Commerce Platforms

The forty-eight-hour takedown mechanism introduced by the E-Commerce Law and its implementing Regulation gives right holders speed that litigation cannot match. It also hands competitors a weapon: an intermediary service provider that is not equipped to adjudicate a trademark dispute may nevertheless be obliged to remove a listing on the strength of a certificate alone.

Uğurcan Tekin · Alican Tekin · Beyza ErdemirDevin Law & IP

Read Article →

Unfair Competition · 14 February 2026

Misleading Statements and Unfair Competition Based on Non-Finalized TÜRKPATENT Decisions

A decision of the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office being final is not the same as its being conclusive. Statements, filings and commercial claims built on a decision that has not yet become conclusive can distort competition, mislead consumers and expose the maker to civil and criminal liability for unfair competition under the Turkish Commercial Code.

Uğurcan Tekin · Beyza ErdemirDevin Law & IP

Read Article →

Trademark · 14 February 2026

Trademark Infringement Through Internet Domain Names and the Litigation Process

A domain name is the most visible use a trademark makes of the digital environment. This article sets out the cumulative conditions under which use of a sign in a domain name amounts to trademark infringement, the loss of rights through acquiescence, and the full range of interim, civil and criminal remedies available to the proprietor before the Turkish courts.

Uğurcan Tekin · Beyza ErdemirDevin Law & IP

Read Article →

Trademark · 14 February 2026

The Court of Cassation’s Approach to Trademark Registrations with a High Degree of Genericness

The Court of Cassation’s RUBY judgment restates a principle that practice too often forgets: so long as a mark remains on the register, it confers absolute and exclusive protection — even where the shared element is said to have become generic. Yet the Office continues to treat weakly distinctive registrations as though they did not exist, and the resulting contradiction is driving a steady rise in annulment actions.

Uğurcan Tekin · Alican Tekin · Beyza ErdemirDevin Law & IP

Read Article →

Data Protection · 12 February 2026

Push Notifications in Mobile Applications Under the Personal Data Protection Law

Bundling an order-tracking notification together with a marketing notification behind a single consent box does not produce valid explicit consent. Following the Board’s Principle Decision No. 2025/1072, granular consent is no longer a design preference for mobile application providers — it is a legal obligation.

Uğurcan Tekin · İnci ÖzçilsalDevin Law & IP

Read Article →

Data Protection · 6 February 2026

Establishing an Internal Personal Data Protection Board Within the Company

Written policies alone no longer demonstrate compliance. An internal Personal Data Protection Board that meets on a defined cycle, records its decisions in minutes and reports to management turns accountability from a stated principle into documented evidence — and, in an investigation, into a defensible position.

Uğurcan Tekin · İnci ÖzçilsalDevin Law & IP

Read Article →

Media & Advertising · 4 February 2026

Advertising Board Decisions — Meeting No. 364: Current Legal Assessments

A sectoral and thematic analysis of the decisions published in respect of the Advertising Board's meeting of 11 December 2025 and numbered 364 — covering the healthcare sector, tourism, and the automotive, e-commerce, platform services and digital interface sectors.

Uğurcan Tekin · İnci Özçilsal · Beyza ErdemirDevin Law & IP

Read Article →

← All Insights

CategoryPatent

Published28 August 2026

Authors

Uğurcan TekinPartner

Mehmet Kerem KüçükTrademark & Patent Specialist

Employee Inventions under Turkish Law: Who Owns the Invention, and What Is It Worth?

Every business investing in R&D sooner or later faces one question: who owns the invention an engineer develops during working hours, using the company's resources? In Turkish law the answer lies in the employee-invention regime set out in Articles 113 et seq. of the Industrial Property Code No. 6769. The regime aims to balance the employer's investment against the employee's creative contribution.

The Code's distinction rests on two concepts. A service invention is one the employee develops while performing the duties of the employment relationship, or by relying to a significant extent on the experience and work of the enterprise. Inventions falling outside that definition are free inventions and, as a rule, belong to the employee. The distinction matters greatly in practice, because the employer's right to claim is confined to service inventions.

The service-invention regime balances the employer's investment against the employee's creative contribution.

The Notification and Claim Mechanism

The regime runs on mutual notifications. An employee who makes a service invention must notify the employer in writing and without delay, in terms clear enough for the employer to evaluate the invention. The employer must then declare to the employee in writing, within the period prescribed by the Code, whether it claims full or partial rights in the invention. If that period is missed, the invention becomes a free invention and passes into the employee's hands. A large share of the disputes that end badly for employers arise not from the subtleties of patent law but from missing these simple deadlines.

Where the employer claims full rights, all rights in the invention pass to the employer. Where it claims partial rights, the invention remains free, but the employer may use it.

Compensation: The Heart of the Regime

The employer's claim triggers the employee's right to compensation. An employer claiming full rights must pay the employee reasonable compensation. Its calculation takes into account the economic value of the invention, the employee's position within the enterprise, and the enterprise's contribution to the making of the invention. The method of calculation is regulated in detail in the regulation on employee inventions. The right to compensation cannot be waived in advance; contractual clauses making the employee renounce notification or compensation up front are invalid.

“In the employee-invention regime, the most expensive mistake is trying to build the system after the invention has been made.”

A Roadmap for Employers

A sound employee-invention system is built before any invention is made. Writing the notification process into employment contracts and workplace directives, defining the internal mechanism for receiving and evaluating notifications, assigning deadline tracking to a single owner, and setting a transparent compensation policy in advance all substantially reduce the risk of dispute. In businesses with high R&D staff turnover, the fate of inventions developed by departing employees deserves separate attention.

Key Principles

A service invention is one developed within the employment relationship or by relying significantly on the enterprise's experience; everything else is a free invention.
The employee must notify the employer of a service invention in writing and without delay.
If the employer does not claim rights within the period prescribed by the Code, the invention becomes free.
A full-rights claim obliges the employer to pay reasonable compensation.
Clauses waiving compensation in advance are invalid.
Notification, deadline tracking and a compensation policy must be in place before the invention is made.

Devin Patent provides attorney services for preparing and prosecuting patent applications based on employee inventions. Compensation disputes and the drafting of invention clauses in employment contracts are handled by our partner firm, Devin Law & IP.

Sources

Industrial Property Code No. 6769, Articles 113 et seq. (mevzuat.gov.tr)
Regulation on Employee Inventions, Inventions Made at Higher Education Institutions and Inventions Arising from Publicly Funded Projects (mevzuat.gov.tr)

Related practice areaIndustrial Property Law→

Strategic Legal SolutionsFor A Global Business World

Who We Are

Why Choose Us

Legal Services Tailored to Your Business

Industrial Property Law

Intellectual Property & Copyright Law

Media, Entertainment & Advertisement

Data Protection, Privacy & Cybersecurity

IT & Technology Law

Corporate Law & Commercial Advisory

Dispute Resolution & Litigation

Maritime, Yachting & Shipyard Law

Awards & Recognition

Our Team

Insights

Trademark Invalidity Actions in Türkiye: Grounds, Acquiescence and the Difference from Administrative Revocation

Proof of Use in Turkish Trademark Oppositions: The Five-Year Test

Trademark Licence Agreements under Turkish Law: Exclusive and Non-Exclusive Licences Compared

Bad-Faith Trademark Filings in Türkiye: The True Owner's Toolkit

Protection of Well-Known Trademarks in Türkiye: When Does Protection Cross Class Boundaries?

Employee Inventions under Turkish Law: Who Owns the Invention, and What Is It Worth?

Trademark Protection on E-Commerce Platforms: From Complaint Mechanisms to the Power of Registration

The Priority Right: The Invisible Calendar of International Filing Strategy

Trade Name versus Trademark in Türkiye: Two Registries, One Market

The UDRP: A Global Arbitral Route against Domain Name Piracy

Trademark Invalidity Actions in Türkiye: Grounds, Acquiescence and the Difference from Administrative Revocation

Proof of Use in Turkish Trademark Oppositions: The Five-Year Test

Trademark Licence Agreements under Turkish Law: Exclusive and Non-Exclusive Licences Compared

Bad-Faith Trademark Filings in Türkiye: The True Owner's Toolkit

Protection of Well-Known Trademarks in Türkiye: When Does Protection Cross Class Boundaries?

Employee Inventions under Turkish Law: Who Owns the Invention, and What Is It Worth?

Trademark Protection on E-Commerce Platforms: From Complaint Mechanisms to the Power of Registration

The Priority Right: The Invisible Calendar of International Filing Strategy

Trade Name versus Trademark in Türkiye: Two Registries, One Market

The UDRP: A Global Arbitral Route against Domain Name Piracy

Our Services

Our Team

Partners & Counsel

Attorneys & Specialists

Legal Trainees

About Us

Why Choose Us

Insights

Trademark Invalidity Actions in Türkiye: Grounds, Acquiescence and the Difference from Administrative Revocation

Proof of Use in Turkish Trademark Oppositions: The Five-Year Test

Trademark Licence Agreements under Turkish Law: Exclusive and Non-Exclusive Licences Compared

Bad-Faith Trademark Filings in Türkiye: The True Owner's Toolkit

Protection of Well-Known Trademarks in Türkiye: When Does Protection Cross Class Boundaries?

Employee Inventions under Turkish Law: Who Owns the Invention, and What Is It Worth?

Trademark Protection on E-Commerce Platforms: From Complaint Mechanisms to the Power of Registration

The Priority Right: The Invisible Calendar of International Filing Strategy

Trade Name versus Trademark in Türkiye: Two Registries, One Market

The UDRP: A Global Arbitral Route against Domain Name Piracy

Preliminary Injunctions and Evidence Preservation in Turkish Trademark Infringement Litigation

Authorship of AI-Generated Content under Turkish Copyright Law

The Quietest Way to Lose a Right: Renewal Calendars and Bulletin Watch

Yacht Design Agreements: Class Approval, Flag State Rules and the Buildability Warranty

The Chain of Title: Why One Unnotarised Assignment Voids Everything After It

Administrative Revocation of Trademarks: A First Assessment of the TÜRKPATENT Route

A Geographical Indication Is Not Property — It Is an Obligation

Opposing a Trademark Application: The Two-Month Window and the Use Defence

Where the Claim Ends: Scope, Equivalents and What the File Says About You

Registering an Industrial Design: What the Twelve-Month Grace Period Really Costs

Utility Model or Patent: What the Cheaper Right Actually Costs

The Madrid Protocol: Is the Fifth Year Really the End of the Risk?

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

Workplace CCTV Systems: The Authority's Public Announcement of 8 June 2026

The Constitutional Court’s Viennalife Judgment: Publicly Disclosed Personal Data and the Principle of Legality

Türkiye’s First Climate Law Adopted by the Grand National Assembly

Sharing Data With Third Parties and the Rules Governing Debt Payment Processes

Expulsion of a Shareholder in Two-Shareholder Limited Companies After the Constitutional Court's Judgment of 17 March 2026

Cybersecurity Law No. 7545: Centralised Governance, Audit and Sanctions Regime

Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Workplace: Risks, Responsibilities and Compliance Strategies

Advertising Board Decisions — Meeting No. 365: Sectoral and Thematic Assessment

New Rules on the Classification of Goods and Services in Trademark Applications

Amendment on Fees Chargeable to Consumers in Food and Beverage Services

Opinions and Criticisms on the Practical Application of Article 6/3 of the Industrial Property Code

The Turkish Data Protection Board’s Ex Officio and On-Site Inspection Powers

Protection of Unregistered Copyright Against Trademark Applications

Intellectual and Industrial Property Infringements on E-Commerce Platforms

Strategic Legal Solutions
For A Global Business World