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

Protection of Unregistered Copyright Against Trademark Applications

Article 6/6 of Industrial Property Code No. 6769 provides that where a trademark applied for contains another person’s copyright or any other intellectual property right, the application shall be refused upon the opposition of the right holder. In practice, however, whenever Article 6/6 is invoked in respect of fictional characters or literary figures, proof of the right arising under the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works is very often made conditional upon production of a registration certificate — entrenching a formalistic approach at odds with the very nature of copyright, which arises automatically upon the creation of the work.

Yet when the wording and purpose of the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works are taken into account, copyright should not be made conditional upon registration. Indeed, the finalised judgment of the 20th Civil Chamber of the Ankara Regional Court of Appeal (Case No. 2022/663 E. – 2024/949 K.) makes clear, in the context of character protection, that a registration certificate cannot be regarded as a right-creating element and that registration must not be treated as a mandatory condition for the emergence of the right.

This article examines the application of Article 6/6 in Türkiye and the reflection of comparable provisions in foreign legal systems, and analyses the Ankara Regional Court of Appeal judgment within the framework of the points of intersection between copyright and trademark law.

Copyright arises upon creation of the work; registration serves only as a means of proof.

The Application of Article 6/6 in the Specific Context of Copyright

Article 6/6 of the Industrial Property Code provides that where a trademark applied for contains another person’s name, trade name, photograph, copyright or any other intellectual property right, the application shall be refused upon the opposition of the right holder. This provision demonstrates that trademark law is not merely a field of economic protection; it is a system that also has regard to intellectual property rights founded on personal and creative effort.

In practice, it is very common for the names of fictional characters and signs identified with works such as films, animated series, television series, comics or computer games to be made the subject of a trademark application without the consent of the right holder. Under the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works, however, such elements are protected from the moment the work is created; use without the consent of the copyright holder therefore infringes the moral rights of the author and constitutes a bar to registration under Article 6/6.

Nonetheless, proof of copyright under Article 6/6 is often difficult. In examinations before the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office it is observed that Article 6/6 can be applied where a registration certificate evidencing copyright is submitted, whereas in the absence of such a document oppositions are for the most part rejected.

In this context, for a character, a scenic element or a term appearing in a cinematographic or literary work to benefit from the protection of Article 6/6, that element must be “sufficiently original”. Originality is directly connected with the reflection of the creator’s personality in the work and is assessed differently in each concrete case. The case law and scholarship have made clear that where fictional characters such as “Muhlis Bey”, “Tweety”, “Tasmanian Devil”, “Tom and Jerry” and “Lucky Luke” are registered as trademarks, those applications will be refused upon the opposition of the copyright holders.

One of the most striking examples in this area is the “Vulcan Salute” decision. The Re-examination and Evaluation Board held that the “Vulcan Salute” sign was an iconic element identified with the “Star Trek” series and that it directly evoked that work, and upheld CBS’s opposition under Article 6/6.

Similarly, in the “Garfield” decision of the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 11 October 2012 (Case No. 2011/8620 E., 2012/1533 K.), the defendant’s registration as a trademark of the cat figure of the well-known “Garfield” character belonging to the claimant was found to be unlawful, and the invalidity of the mark was ordered. Likewise, in the “Conan” decision of the 11th Civil Chamber dated 4 May 2010 (Case No. 2008/13406 E., 2010/4883 K.), the court held that the defendant’s registration of the term “Conan” as a trademark constituted copyright infringement and unfair competition.

These decisions demonstrate that copyright, even where unregistered, may be used as an effective instrument of protection in trademark law, and that Article 6/6 provides a strong legal basis, particularly for the creative industries.

Fictional characters identified with films, series and animation are among the most frequent targets of opportunistic filings.

Examination of the Ankara Regional Court of Appeal Judgment

In its judgment of 16 May 2024 (Case No. 2022/663 E., 2024/949 K.), the 20th Civil Chamber of the Ankara Regional Court of Appeal delivered a ruling in the dispute concerning the unauthorised trademark application for the character name “TOSPİK” which is highly apposite for Turkish law and capable of opening the way to a new practice.

Under the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works, copyright consists of absolute and unregistered rights arising automatically upon the creation of the work. Nevertheless, in oppositions filed before the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office it is frequently encountered that a registration certificate is demanded as proof of right holdership. That practice weakened the claims of persons without a certificate even in cases where the creator of the work was plainly identifiable.

The Ankara Regional Court of Appeal judgment fundamentally changed that formalistic practice. The court accepted that the term “TOSPİK” was one of the original characters of the animated series belonging to the claimant company and that the term must be protected as an independent literary figure within the scope of the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works. The court accordingly held that, even in the absence of a copyright certificate, where it is proven that the work was created before the trademark application and belongs to the claimant, the mark must be refused pursuant to Article 6/6.

A further important aspect of the judgment concerns the standard of proof: it was considered sufficient to establish that the work had been created before the trademark application and that it belonged to the claimant, and publication dates, production agreements, promotional materials and public recognition were taken into account in that proof. This approach demonstrates once again the importance for authors of systematically archiving the commercial and administrative records in their possession.

This judgment has strengthened the legal position of creators who do not hold a copyright certificate but whose characters are known to the public, against attempts by third parties to register similar terms as trademarks. It has thereby laid the foundation for a sound and innovative practice in Turkish industrial property law for the prevention of bad-faith trademark applications.

Publication dates, production agreements and promotional materials carry the burden of proof.

Conclusion

Article 6/6 is one of the fundamental provisions located at the point of intersection between trademark law and intellectual property rights. In practice, however, proof of copyright ownership is frequently made dependent on a registration certificate, and a formalistic understanding contrary to the essence of the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works has taken hold.

Yet, as expressly emphasised in exemplary decisions both of the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office and of the judicial authorities, a registration certificate is not a mandatory requirement for the existence of copyright. In the scheme of that Law, for an intellectual product to be regarded as a work it is sufficient that it bears the imprint of its author’s personality and falls within one of the categories of work enumerated in the Law; registration is not constitutive of protection but merely a means facilitating proof. Requiring a registration certificate as an absolute precondition in opposition proceedings before the Office is therefore incompatible with the nature of the protection.

The Office should, in parallel with the evolving dynamics of intellectual property, have regard to rights arising automatically upon the creation of a work and adopt an interpretation open to their protection.

This approach will both accord with the spirit of the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works and, by ensuring that creative effort is protected independently of registration, carry Turkish intellectual property law to a more contemporary and equitable position. In this sense, it will be of considerable importance for the protection of rights that all authors initiate legal action against infringing trademarks, irrespective of whether their intellectual rights are registered.

Related practice areaIntellectual Property & Copyright Law→

Related reading

Data ProtectionWorkplace CCTV Systems: The Authority's Public Announcement of 8 June 202618 June 2026Data ProtectionThe Constitutional Court’s Viennalife Judgment: Publicly Disclosed Personal Data and the Principle of Legality16 June 2026RegulatoryTürkiye’s First Climate Law Adopted by the Grand National Assembly14 June 2026