Home About Us Services Awards Team Insights Career Contact Us TÜRKÇEENGLISH Devin Law & IP — Istanbul
← All Insights
CategoryE-Commerce & IP
Published14 February 2026
Authors
Uğurcan TekinPartner
Alican TekinPartner
Beyza ErdemirAttorney at Law

Intellectual and Industrial Property Infringements on E-Commerce Platforms

With the pace that digitalisation has gained in recent years, users and undertakings have multiplied the opportunities available to them to promote and conduct their commercial activities through online platforms. As with every development, however, this one has brought with it a range of legal problems.

The inability to apply regulation at a sufficient level, and the continued growth and diversification of online platforms, make it difficult to pursue acts contrary to intellectual and industrial property rights and to apply sanctions to those acts. The increase in infringements, particularly in respect of trademark, copyright and design rights, has prompted debate on the balance between the responsibilities of intermediary service providers and the protection of right holders.

This article examines the new legislative provisions concerning intellectual and industrial property infringements on e-commerce platforms and the practices encountered in the field, and addresses the legal proportionality of those practices.

The forty-eight-hour takedown mechanism delivers speed — and carries a risk of abuse.

Domestic Legislation on Intellectual Property Infringements on E-Commerce Platforms

Under Article 1/B-a of Law No. 5846 on Intellectual and Artistic Works, a work means “every kind of intellectual and artistic product bearing the characteristics of its author and enumerated as works of science and literature, music, fine arts or cinema”. Article 71 of that Law expressly sets out the criminal sanctions applicable where rights arising from a work are infringed.

Similarly, Article 2/1-ı of Industrial Property Code No. 6769 defines industrial property rights as covering the concepts of “trademark, geographical indication, design, patent and utility model”. The Code likewise provides in detail for the civil and criminal sanctions available where industrial property rights are infringed.

In a rapidly digitalising world, however, the obligations and sanctions foreseen by the existing legislation frequently prove insufficient to prevent infringements occurring on online platforms. The legislature has therefore been obliged to develop alternative arrangements and new mechanisms of legal protection, particularly in respect of e-commerce platforms. Indeed, an action brought in respect of an intellectual or industrial property infringement occurring on an online platform today takes an average of two years to conclude even at first instance. That is markedly slow by comparison with the speed at which online infringements spread, and it makes effective protection of right holders difficult.

Against that background, Law No. 6563 on the Regulation of Electronic Commerce and the arrangements made under it are of great importance for the prevention of online infringements. Article 2 of that Law defines a “service provider” as a natural or legal person engaged in electronic commerce activity, and an “intermediary service provider” as a natural or legal person providing the electronic commerce environment enabling the economic and commercial activities of others to be carried out.

Although liability for intellectual and industrial property infringements is generally directed at the service provider — that is, at the undertaking itself — Article 9/3 of the Law also imposes certain obligations on intermediary service providers. Under that provision: “Upon the complaint of the right holder, supported by information and documents relating to an infringement of an intellectual and industrial property right, the electronic commerce intermediary service provider shall remove the product of the electronic commerce service provider that is the subject of the complaint from publication and notify the situation to that provider and to the right holder.”

This provision shows that intermediary service providers have ceased to be merely technical “platform operators” and, in defined circumstances, have come under an obligation to respond to the requests of right holders.

The Regulation and the Formal Requirements of a Complaint

The general framework introduced by the Law was elaborated by the Regulation on Electronic Commerce Intermediary Service Providers and Electronic Commerce Service Providers dated 29 December 2022 (Official Gazette 29.12.2022/3205). Article 12 of the Regulation sets out clearly the documents required for a complaint to be validly made and the procedure to be followed by the intermediary service provider. A complaint concerning an intellectual and industrial property infringement is made to the intermediary service provider through the internal communication system, a notary or registered electronic mail, and must contain the following:

  • A registration certificate issued by the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office evidencing right holdership, or a banderole form issued by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, or — in respect of collecting societies under Law No. 5846 — a certificate of activity
  • Where the complainant is a natural person: name, surname, Turkish identification number, address details, e-mail address and, where applicable, registered electronic mail address; where a legal person: trade name, address details, e-mail address, registered electronic mail address where applicable; and, where the complaint is made by a representative, the same details for the principal and the representative together with a document evidencing authority to represent
  • The internet address showing the product that is the subject of the complaint
  • A declaration that the complainant will be liable for any damage arising should the information and documents submitted with the complaint prove to be contrary to the truth

The intermediary service provider does not process applications that do not contain the matters listed above and informs the applicant of the deficiencies. Upon receipt of a compliant complaint, the intermediary service provider must, without delay and within a period not exceeding forty-eight hours, remove the product complained of from publication and notify the situation to the service provider and to the right holder. The notification to the service provider must state the methods available for objecting to the complaint. Notifications and information under this article may be made through the internal communication system.

In order to discharge these obligations, intermediary service providers develop instruments such as “trademark complaint forms” within their platforms, since the Regulation requires them to remove the product complained of within approximately forty-eight hours of receiving a complaint.

Practices Encountered in the Field

Because registration fees in the Turkish market are low by comparison with many other countries and because ex officio examination by the supervisory mechanisms remains limited, a very large number of rights are registered. Commercial undertakings apply for registration in order to secure their industrial and intellectual property rights; this leads to the emergence of similar marks operating in the same sector. In such an environment, some competing undertakings are able to use the right of complaint recognised under the Regulation not for its essential protective purpose but in order to obstruct the activities of their competitors.

For example, Instagram, as an intermediary service provider, has established a “trademark complaint form” within its own structure and has enabled persons alleging that their rights have been infringed to file a complaint by submitting the information and documents prescribed in Article 12 of the Regulation. Yet matters such as likelihood of confusion between trademarks require deep legal analysis and judicial assessment. Notwithstanding this, the intermediary service provider is able to remove the content or product complained of merely upon production of the documents.

This point has also been criticised in scholarship: “In practice, intermediary service providers are on many occasions compelled to decide whether an infringement notification is justified or unjustified without having sufficient information and documents at their disposal.”

“Intermediary service providers are not a forum capable of adjudicating, like a court, the legal dispute between right holders and sellers.”

For right holders, this mechanism forestalls lengthy and costly proceedings and provides rapid and effective protection, thereby offering benefits in terms of the efficiency of judicial processes and the saving of time. On the other hand, it may be abused contrary to the rule of good faith laid down in Article 2 of the Turkish Civil Code and may become an instrument of unfair competition between commercial rivals.

Similarly, Trendyol is subject to the same obligations as an intermediary service provider. Where proceedings concerning a design right are pending between the parties and one of them applies to Trendyol in bad faith, the product complained of may be removed from publication without any examination of genuine right holdership. This causes the delicate balance between the principle of proportionality and rapid, effective protection to come into conflict in practice. Although a result is obtained within a short period such as forty-eight hours, in complaints not founded upon a genuine right that process may produce disproportionate consequences to the detriment of the party complained of.

Marketplace complaint forms decide in hours what courts examine over years.

The Right of Objection

At this point, the party complained of is also afforded a means of protection: the right of objection is regulated in Article 13 of the Regulation. An objection to a complaint concerning an intellectual and industrial property infringement is made to the intermediary service provider by the service provider whose product has been removed, through the internal communication system, a notary or registered electronic mail, and must contain:

  • The name and surname or trade name of the objector and, where the objection is made by an authorised representative or attorney, their names and surnames together with a document evidencing authority to represent
  • The grounds of the objection and the documents and evidence establishing that the product removed from publication does not infringe the complainant’s intellectual and industrial property rights
  • Invoices or documents serving in place of invoices capable of proving that the product is genuine, together with agreements and other documents and evidence showing, working backwards from the objector, the holder of the intellectual and industrial property right or the persons who have placed the product on the market with the authority granted by the right holder
  • A declaration that the applicant will be liable for any damage arising should the information and documents submitted with the objection prove to be contrary to the truth

The intermediary service provider does not process objections that do not contain these matters and informs the applicant of the deficiencies. Where it assesses a duly made objection and finds it justified, the intermediary service provider may republish the content or product concerned. Under Article 14/2 of the Regulation, unless the holder of the intellectual property right submits new documents proving the infringement, the intermediary service provider will not process complaints relating to the same product and the same allegation. This prevents a complaint-and-objection process that has once been resolved from being reactivated in the absence of any new evidence.

Where the products are republished following the service provider’s objection, the holder of the intellectual property right may, rather than applying again to the intermediary service provider, apply to the judicial and administrative authorities.

Where a product removed upon the complaint of the holder of an intellectual property right is republished by the service provider, the intermediary service provider cannot be expected to detect that republication of its own motion and remove the product again. Imposing such an active monitoring obligation on the intermediary service provider would be inconsistent with the fact that it is under no obligation to control the content supplied by service providers or to investigate whether an unlawful activity exists. Where the service provider republishes the product complained of, the course open to the holder of the intellectual property right is therefore to file a fresh complaint or to apply directly to the judicial and administrative authorities.

Liability of the Intermediary Service Provider

The holder of an intellectual and industrial property right may apply to the judicial and administrative authorities and bring an action for the determination, prevention and cessation of the infringement. We take the view, however, that the intermediary service provider platform should not be joined as a direct defendant in such actions. The proper addressee is the service provider that has carried out the unlawful act.

That said, where the complaint of the complaining service provider is not examined by the intermediary service provider and no necessary measure is taken, even in circumstances where the activities of the service provider complained of are manifestly unfair and unlawful, the liability of the intermediary service provider should also come into play. Article 9 of Law No. 6563 provides that “intermediary service providers shall not be obliged to control the content supplied by natural and legal persons using the electronic environment in which they provide services, or to investigate whether an unlawful activity or situation exists in relation to that content or to the goods or services which are its subject”.

That provision must not, however, be read as meaning that intermediary service providers are entirely free of liability. In other words, although an intermediary service provider occupies the position of an intermediary, it must discharge its duty of care in its legal activities and must not leave complaints without result by disregarding manifestly unlawful acts. Otherwise, the liability of the intermediary service provider may arise both under the tort provisions of the Code of Obligations and within the framework of the obligations foreseen under the E-Commerce Law.

In conclusion, while the system offers right holders a rapid and practical mechanism of protection, it also brings with it the possibility of abuse and the risk of infringing the principle of proportionality. Operating the practice fairly and in a balanced manner therefore requires an approach that has regard to the interests both of right holders and of the parties complained of.

The right of objection is the counterweight to a takedown made on documents alone.

Conclusion

E-commerce platforms have become indispensable, with the acceleration of digitalisation, both for right holders and for users. That development has also prepared the ground for intellectual and industrial property rights to be infringed and abused more easily in the online environment. The provisions introduced in Turkish law by the E-Commerce Law and the associated Regulation have afforded right holders a rapid and effective mechanism of protection and have caused intermediary service providers to evolve from purely technical intermediaries into actors bearing legal responsibility. At the same time, the transformation of bad-faith complaints into an instrument of unfair competition between rivals, the erosion of the principle of proportionality and the prejudice suffered by genuine right holders demonstrate that the existing system is not sufficient.

In practical terms, right holders are well advised to keep registration certificates and evidence of use up to date and to operate platforms’ internal complaint systems with accurate and complete documentation; sellers faced with a bad-faith complaint should exercise their right of objection within time and with documents demonstrating the chain of authenticity. Conducting these processes on a documentary basis materially strengthens the parties’ position in any subsequent judicial phase.

Bibliography

  • Industrial Property Code No. 6769
  • Law No. 5846 on Intellectual and Artistic Works
  • Law No. 6563 on the Regulation of Electronic Commerce
  • Regulation on Electronic Commerce Intermediary Service Providers and Electronic Commerce Service Providers (Official Gazette 29.12.2022/3205)
  • Akıncı, E. (2025). Fikri Mülkiyet Hukuku Fasikülleri I: Fikri ve Sınai Hakların Korunması, O. A. Yıldız (ed.), pp. 161-162, On İki Levha Yayıncılık
Related practice areaIndustrial Property Law→

Related reading

TrademarkNew Rules on the Classification of Goods and Services in Trademark Applications26 February 2026TrademarkOpinions and Criticisms on the Practical Application of Article 6/3 of the Industrial Property Code14 February 2026Unfair CompetitionMisleading Statements and Unfair Competition Based on Non-Finalized TÜRKPATENT Decisions14 February 2026