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

Trademark Infringement Through Internet Domain Names and the Litigation Process

Rising demand and increasingly competitive conditions have made branding, and the registration of trademarks before official institutions, widespread. That development required trademarks to be subjected to comprehensive legal regulation, and Industrial Property Code No. 6769 was enacted. Article 4 of the Code defines a trademark as any sign — including personal names, words, figures, colours, letters, numerals, sounds and the shape of goods or their packaging — provided that it is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings and of being represented on the register in a manner enabling the subject matter of the protection afforded to the proprietor to be understood clearly and precisely.

A transformation is taking place in the digital sphere, with millions of domain names and hosting providers emerging on the internet. Social networks have increased individuals’ access to the world through digital media, and consumers are observed to interact with brands more intensively online. Because a significant proportion of consumer preferences is now shaped through digital networks, domain names on those networks may be said to be of a high order of importance for trademarks.

That interaction, however, makes it possible for acts of trademark infringement to be committed through domain names. Determining the acts of infringement that may be committed through domain names, and the legal remedies available to the proprietor where such acts occur, is of importance for the effective protection of trademark rights.

Domain names are where a trademark is most visibly used — and most easily appropriated.

Trademark Infringement in the Specific Context of Domain Names

A trademark, as defined in Article 4 of the Code, is protected as an industrial property right under the provisions of that Code. Certain acts are of a nature to infringe the rights of the proprietor. Trademark infringement is regulated in Article 29 of the Code by reference to Article 7. Under that provision, the following acts constitute trademark infringement:

  • Using the trademark in the ways specified in Article 7 without the consent of the proprietor
  • Imitating the trademark by using the trademark or a sign indistinguishably similar to it, without the consent of the proprietor
  • Selling, distributing, otherwise placing on the market, importing, exporting, holding for commercial purposes, or offering to enter into contracts in respect of, products bearing a trademark used by way of infringement, where the person knows or ought to know that the trademark has been imitated by use of the trademark or a sign indistinguishably similar to it
  • Extending without authority the rights granted by the proprietor by way of licence, or transferring those rights to third parties

Trademark infringement on the internet generally arises from use in a domain name, use in page content, and use in the background — as a keyword or in redirecting code. The manifestation of such infringement most frequently encountered by proprietors is, without doubt, use in a domain name. Protecting domain names — which perform the function of identifying and distinguishing firms in the internet environment — within the scope of trademark infringement is therefore of high importance.

Accordingly, use by third parties of a trademark or a similar sign in a domain name, in a manner creating commercial effect and without any prior right, will constitute trademark infringement. For infringement to arise in a domain name, a number of conditions must be satisfied cumulatively.

The Proprietor Must Hold a Registered Trademark

In examining trademark infringement, Articles 7 and 29 of the Code must be considered together. The remedies available in the judicial process to a proprietor who considers that its trademark right has been infringed through a domain name arise from the protection of that right. Because actual protection is afforded to a trademark by its registration, the proprietor’s ability to exercise the legal remedies arising from infringement is conditional upon holding a registered trademark.

The Sign Constituting the Trademark, or a Similar Sign, Must Be Used in the Domain Name

For infringement to arise in relation to domain names — which have a distinguishing and origin-indicating function — the trademark or a sign similar to it must be used in the domain name. The 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, having established that the use of the name “ÖZDİLEK” in the domain name “www.ozdilekevi.com” “contained a likelihood of confusion by way of identity” with the claimant’s marks, held that the term “ÖZDİLEK”, used in the domain name in a manner creating commercial effect and a risk of confusion, infringed the claimant’s trademark rights.

Where the sign constituting the trademark is used identically as a domain name and in a manner creating commercial effect, the existence of infringement must be accepted even if genuine products are sold on the website, provided that the domain name holder has no prior and superior right.

By contrast, where the trademark is used in the domain name but the website carries out work and transactions relating to goods and services different from those for which the trademark is registered, infringement will not arise if the registered trademark is not well known, or if — even where it is well known — the registration of the domain name concerned dates back further in time. Where, however, the proprietor proves that its trademark is well known and highly distinctive, infringement will be established.

The Sign Must Be Used in the Domain Name in a Manner Creating Commercial Effect

Where a registered trademark or a similar sign is used in a domain name, that use must be at a level creating commercial effect for it to be accepted as constituting infringement. The condition of commercial effect is not required under EU legislation, and what is to be understood by commercial effect is not clear under the Industrial Property Code. The concept does, however, appear in the WIPO Joint Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Marks and Other Industrial Property Rights in Signs on the Internet. Under that text, the circumstances in which the person using the sign “carries out, or plans to carry out, activities in the member state in relation to goods and services identical or similar to those for which the sign is used on the internet” may be taken as a basis in assessing commercial effect.

In one decision, the Court of Cassation held that where a person engaged in the maintenance and repair of HONDA-branded vehicles used the term HONDA BAR in his business beyond the scope of informing customers, and used that term by registering the domain name “www.barhondaservis.com”, commercial effect existed and trademark infringement was accordingly established.

In another case, the first-instance court had held that the website “www.ekolhoca.com”, which provided educational services to students without requiring membership registration, initially involved no commercial effect and that no infringement had occurred; the Court of Cassation reversed that decision as unfounded, on the ground that the site also carried advertisements for magazine sales alongside its educational services and thereby generated income, so that “commercial effect also existed”.

The Court of Justice of the European Union takes the view that where advertising, promotion or sales relating to the domain name holder’s commercial activities are carried out in any way in the content of a website accessible through the domain name, or where use is made in the background in the form of redirecting code or keywords with the aim of appearing high in search-engine results and on the page where the trademark proprietor is displayed, “commercial effect may be said to exist”.

Keywords, redirect codes and search-engine placement all feed into the assessment of commercial effect.

The User Must Have No Legitimate Connection With the Trademark

For use of a trademark to constitute infringement, the person using it in the domain name must have no legitimate connection with the trademark. In some cases — for instance a commercial connection such as a dealership, agency or distributorship, or use based on a long-standing registered trade name — use of the trademark in a domain name rests on a legitimate ground.

Where products or services provided by the proprietor are subsequently used by distributors within the framework of an agreement, that use has been accepted as trademark use carried out by the proprietor, since the third-party distributors have a legitimate connection with the trademark.

By contrast, where the use in the domain name is of a trademark character and creates “a likelihood of confusion” with the proprietor’s registered trade name, infringement may be accepted even where the registered trade name is used in the domain name. To speak of trademark use in a domain name, commercial uses such as the creation of a market or a market share sufficient to assist in distinguishing the goods and services for which the mark is used must be assessed together. Symbolic uses not involving actual use will not constitute trademark use.

For example, where a trademark is used only symbolically in a domain name but there is no use creating commercial effect on the website or in other media, there can be no question of trademark use.

The Use Must Not Rest on a Prior and Superior Right

Where the trademark used in the domain name can be justified by the existence of a prior and superior right, there can be no question of infringement of the proprietor’s trademark. For example, where a domain name was acquired and put to use by the defendant at an earlier date, the claimant’s assertion that its own use had rendered the mark well known and that its trademark rights had accordingly been infringed was not upheld.

Loss of Rights Through Acquiescence

Where a considerable period has elapsed since the domain name was acquired and the proprietor has remained silent throughout that period in the face of the acquisition, a loss of rights through acquiescence may arise. Where that occurs, the proprietor will be unable, after a certain period, to assert that its trademark rights have been infringed.

For example, in an action brought on the ground of trademark infringement approximately fifteen years after registration of the domain name, the Court of Cassation held that “a loss of rights through acquiescence had arisen by reason of the very long period elapsed since registration of the domain name”, and that the claimant could not assert its infringement claim.

In another decision, the Court of Cassation held that a claimant who had remained silent in the face of use of a domain name from 2005 until 2014 could not assert in 2014 that its trademark rights had been infringed, “by reason of the loss of rights through acquiescence”, and that such a claim would constitute an abuse of right under Article 2 of the Turkish Civil Code.

Remedies Available to the Proprietor Before the Turkish Courts

Where the above conditions are satisfied cumulatively, the proprietor’s trademark rights may be said to have been infringed through the domain name. The proprietor then has a number of remedies at its disposal. It should also be noted that the claims set out below may be advanced individually or together.

In general, the remedies available to the proprietor in the event of trademark infringement are set out in Article 149 of the Industrial Property Code. The court having jurisdiction over those remedies is the Civil Court for Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights.

Interim Injunctions

The most frequently used and most effective of the remedies available where a trademark right is infringed is the request for an interim injunction within the main action. Under Article 159 of the Code, the proprietor may request an interim injunction before bringing an infringement action or together with the action, by proving the assertion that “acts constituting infringement are being seriously used in Türkiye or that serious preparations for such use are being made”.

In this connection the proprietor must, together with a clear and comprehensible request for an interim injunction, state expressly what measure it seeks and why that measure is needed, and must satisfy the judge on a prima facie basis that the measure should be granted. It is important here for the proprietor to create conclusive evidence of the infringing uses by carrying out an electronic determination through a notary, and to submit that evidence to the file together with the request for interim relief.

Furthermore, in intellectual and industrial property law the general rule as to the exceptional nature of interim injunctions has been abandoned: where the proprietor holds sufficient evidence that its trademark rights have been or will be infringed, an injunction will be granted in order to secure the effectiveness of the judgment to be given at the end of the proceedings. Interim relief is therefore of high importance in trademark law.

Where the proprietor’s request for an interim injunction is granted, effective measures may be taken in respect of the infringement until the conclusion of the proceedings, and effective protection of the trademark right may be secured. The court may order “any measure that will remove the objection or prevent the damage”. Depending on the circumstances of the case, the proprietor may therefore seek a range of measures, including the prevention by way of interim injunction of the exercise against the claimant of rights arising from the defendant’s trademark registration, and the prevention of the transfer of the trademark in dispute to third parties until the conclusion of the proceedings.

A legal instrument that current court practice makes almost indispensable before an application for interim relief is the preliminary determination of evidence. Under Article 150/3 of the Code, by way of a determination requested from the court before or at the time of the application for interim relief, without notification to the opposing party, a trademark attorney is appointed to the file as an expert and evidence relating to the opposing party’s use of the mark is collected. It is sufficient for the claimant to have a legal interest in the preliminary determination, and that interest is accepted where it appears that “the evidence will be lost or its presentation will become more difficult if it is not determined immediately”.

A request for preliminary determination submitted to the file before the assessment of the interim injunction is of high importance in strengthening the request and in securing an effective measure until the conclusion of the proceedings.

Although an interim injunction may make provision in relation to redirects, persons committing infringement through domain names may continue to use the domain name after the injunction by altering the redirects. For example, where a redirect bearing the prefix “http://” is used on a domain name in respect of which an injunction has been obtained, the defendant may continue to use the domain name by changing the redirect to “https://”. In that event, what must be done is to make a fresh application for an interim injunction before the court seised of the action. The court will thereby grant the injunction and prevent the continuation of the infringement through the altered domain name.

Under Article 149/1-g of the Code, where the proprietor proves that “its trademark right has been infringed as a result of the infringing act”, it may request the court to order notification of the judgment to the persons concerned and its publication by means such as a daily newspaper.

Preliminary determination of evidence has become almost indispensable before interim relief.

Actions Available to the Proprietor

Action for Determination of Infringement. The action for determination of infringement under Article 149/1-a examines whether an act constitutes trademark infringement. Neither fault on the part of the person committing the act nor the occurrence of damage is required for the action to be brought, and the proprietor may bring the action without sending a warning notice or giving prior notice. A proprietor who considers that its trademark rights have been infringed may therefore seek a determination of the infringement in order to prove that act.

A further remedy in relation to domain names is the proprietor’s ability to request the cancellation and deletion of the domain name through which the infringing act was committed. The proprietor may thus request cancellation or deletion of a domain name registered otherwise than in its own name and constituting trademark infringement, and may also have that deletion order enforced abroad, thereby securing effective worldwide protection of its trademark right in the domain name environment.

An important problem encountered in relation to cancellation and deletion of a domain name arises from the difference between the “.com” and “.com.tr” extensions. Cancellation and deletion of a domain name with a “.com” extension cannot be sought before the Turkish courts; only requests for cancellation and deletion of domain names with a “.com.tr” extension may be valid before them. Attention must therefore be paid to the extension when seeking cancellation and deletion.

Action for Prevention of Infringement. Under Article 149/1-b, the proprietor may request the court to prevent an infringement that is about to occur or that is likely to be repeated. Since the action rests on the danger of infringement, neither fault nor damage is required; it is sufficient to show strong indications that the infringement will occur or will be repeated.

Action for Cessation of Infringement. Under Article 149/1-c, the proprietor may request the cessation of an infringement that has begun and of a continuing violation within the scope of that infringement. As explained, an ongoing violation is required; an action for cessation cannot be brought in respect of an infringement that has come to an end.

Action for Removal of Infringement. Under Article 149/1-ç, a person whose trademark rights have been infringed may request the court to remedy the infringement — that is, to eliminate its material consequences. The proprietor may therefore have recourse to this remedy for as long as the infringement and its consequences continue. What is sought within the scope of removal will vary according to the particular features of the case, but claims for the deletion of marks and the destruction of infringing products are generally advanced. Fault on the part of the person alleged to have committed the infringing act is likewise not required in an action for removal.

Action for Compensation. Beyond the remedies set out in Article 149, the proprietor may also advance a claim for compensation. Under Article 150/1, persons committing acts deemed to constitute trademark infringement are under an obligation to compensate the loss suffered by the proprietor. Article 151 provides that a proprietor who has suffered loss may claim that loss from the person committing the infringing act. The proprietor may therefore claim compensation covering both actual loss and lost profit.

Criminal Liability

Where an act of trademark infringement is committed, the person committing it also bears criminal liability. The proprietor may request that the infringer be punished under Article 30 of the Code.

For the criminal liability of the infringer to arise, a number of conditions must be satisfied cumulatively. Accordingly, the proprietor’s trademark must be registered, and criminal liability will arise where acts are committed in the form of reproduction, likelihood of confusion, removal of a sign indicating that trademark protection exists, unauthorised disposition over the trademark right, or infringement of the reputation of the trademark.

In such a case the proprietor must file a criminal complaint alleging infringement of its trademark rights. Since the filing of a criminal complaint is a right strictly personal to the holder, it cannot be exercised by another. It should also be noted that the court having jurisdiction over criminal disputes arising from trademark infringement through domain names is the Criminal Court for Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights.

Limitation Periods

The limitation period in actions for trademark infringement through domain names must be determined in accordance with Article 157 of the Code, which provides that “in claims of a private-law nature arising from an industrial property right or a traditional product name, the provisions of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 of 11 January 2011 on limitation shall apply”, thereby referring to the Code of Obligations.

Since trademark infringement is by its nature assessed as a tort, the two-year and ten-year limitation periods under Article 72 of the Code of Obligations apply by virtue of the reference in Article 157, so that the action must be brought within “two years from the date on which the proprietor learns of the act and, in any event, ten years from the commission of the act”.

In practice, documenting the domain name through WHOIS records, archive captures, notarial determinations and electronic determination tools is decisive for the strength of the pre-action evidence file. In the “.com.tr” extension, the dispute resolution mechanisms available before TRABİS may also be considered as an option running parallel to the judicial route.

Conclusion

Digital transformation — one of the forces shaping today’s world — has required changes in the field of industrial property, as in every area of law. With those changes, acts of trademark infringement committed through domain names have been regulated in law and supported by court decisions.

Given the importance of the internet and of digital networks in contemporary society, it is of great importance that the proprietor be afforded a sufficient level of civil and criminal protection in respect of acts of trademark infringement committed through domain names.

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 2026TrademarkThe Court of Cassation’s Approach to Trademark Registrations with a High Degree of Genericness14 February 2026