Design Protection in Turkey

Design – the outward appearance of a product – is a key competitive factor in many industries, from furniture and textiles to the automotive sector. In Turkey it is protected through registered and unregistered designs under the Industrial Property Code No. 6769 (SMK), which aligns Turkish design law closely with the EU Community Design Regulation. Since Turkey is also a major manufacturing location, design protection has a double significance for foreign companies: as protection for their own products and as a due-diligence benchmark when commissioning Turkish manufacturers.

Table of contents

• What is protected as a design?
• What are the requirements for protection?
• What distinguishes registered from unregistered designs?
• How does the registration procedure work?
• How does international registration via the Hague System work?
• What rights does the design confer?
• What limitations apply – in particular for spare parts?
• Who owns employee designs and commissioned designs?
• How are design rights enforced and challenged?
• How do the Turkish courts apply the overall-impression test? Examples from practice
• Which design strategy is recommended for collections and production in Turkey?
• What are the most common mistakes in practice?
• Conclusion

What is protected as a design?

A design is the appearance of the whole or part of a product resulting from features such as its lines, contours, colours, shape, surface texture or materials and its ornamentation. A product is any industrial or handicraft item, including packaging, graphic symbols and typographic typefaces, as well as products composed of multiple components. Features of appearance dictated solely by technical function are not protected, nor are interconnections that must necessarily be reproduced in a specific form ("must-fit").

What are the requirements for protection?

A design is protectable if it is new and has individual character ("ayırt edici nitelik"). It is new if no identical design was made available to the public before the filing or priority date; it has individual character if the overall impression it produces on the informed user differs from that of previously disclosed designs. A twelve-month grace period allows the designer to present the design – at trade fairs, for example – and still file a valid application within that period; disclosures outside Turkey count as well, since novelty is assessed on a worldwide basis.

What distinguishes registered from unregistered designs?

Code No. 6769 protects, for the first time, not only registered but also unregistered designs: if a design is made available to the public in Turkey, it enjoys three years of protection against imitation without any registration. Protection of the registered design is stronger – it also works against independent parallel creations – and runs for five years from filing, renewable up to 25 years. The unregistered design is thus a safety net for short-lived products (fashion collections, for example) but does not replace registration for strategically important designs, especially as the holder must prove first disclosure in Turkey and the act of copying.

How does the registration procedure work?

Applications are filed with TÜRKPATENT; several designs of the same class can be combined in a multiple application, which considerably reduces the costs for collections. In addition to formalities, the Office also examines novelty ex officio; applications for manifestly non-novel designs are refused. Registered designs are published; within three months of publication third parties may file an opposition, decided by the Re-examination and Evaluation Board. On request, publication can be deferred for up to 30 months – useful when the product is not yet on the market and imitators should not be given a head start.

How does international registration via the Hague System work?

Turkey is a member of the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs. Foreign companies can therefore obtain Turkish protection through an international application with WIPO designating Turkey; the designation undergoes the national examination including the opposition procedure. For portfolios already managed via The Hague, this is the most efficient route; where objections are expected, the national filing with a local representative offers advantages in terms of reaction speed.

What rights does the design confer?

The holder may prohibit third parties from manufacturing, offering, placing on the market, importing, exporting or stocking for those purposes a product incorporating or applying the design without consent. The scope of protection extends to any design that does not produce a different overall impression on the informed user; the degree of freedom of the designer is taken into account in the assessment. Designs can be assigned and licensed; transfers of rights should be recorded in the register to take effect against third parties. Design protection can be cumulated with trademark protection (three-dimensional marks), copyright and unfair competition law – multi-track protection of valuable product designs is expressly possible and advisable.

What limitations apply – in particular for spare parts?

Of practical importance is the repair clause: the use of a protected design for components of complex products for the purpose of repair – the classic example being visible automotive spare parts – is permitted under certain conditions after three years from the market launch of the product, provided there is no deception as to origin. Further limitations concern private acts, experimental purposes, citations and the equipment of foreign means of transport. Component parts that are not visible during normal use enjoy no protection in the first place.

Who owns employee designs and commissioned designs?

Designs created by employees in performance of their duties or predominantly with the employer's resources belong to the employer by operation of law, unless otherwise agreed; the same applies, in favour of the customer, to designs created within commissioned or service relationships. Nevertheless, an express rights clause is recommended in design, work and agency agreements – including filing and priority rights and designer attribution – to avoid disputes about scope and ancillary rights.

How are design rights enforced and challenged?

In the event of infringement, the holder has claims for injunctive relief, removal, destruction and damages, including the infringer's profits or a hypothetical licence fee; preliminary measures, evidence preservation ("delil tespiti") and customs seizure at the border are also available. Jurisdiction lies with the specialised civil courts for intellectual and industrial property rights. The invalidity of a registered design – in particular for lack of novelty or individual character – is asserted by court action and is the usual defence of the alleged infringer. As in patent law, pure design infringement is not a criminal offence; however, where trademarks are infringed at the same time or unfair competition is involved, additional criminal and unfair competition remedies become available.

How do the Turkish courts apply the overall-impression test? Examples from practice

How the "overall impression" standard central to invalidity and infringement proceedings works in practice is shown by the Red Bull/Baisun decision of the Court of Cassation (11th Civil Chamber, judgment of 5 September 2024, E. 2023/4166, K. 2024/6078). The dispute concerned the invalidity of a registered design for an energy drink can. The first-instance court and the Regional Court of Appeal held that the contested design did clear the novelty threshold, because it was not identical to the earlier design – but that in its overall impression on the informed user it did not differ sufficiently from the earlier design and trademark images and therefore lacked individual character. The Court of Cassation upheld this assessment and with it two principles: novelty alone is not sufficient for protection, and individual character must be assessed on the basis of the informed user's overall visual perception.

A second instructive example is the MERCEDES VITO decision of the Court of Cassation (11th Civil Chamber, judgment of 24 April 2017, E. 2015/14032, K. 2017/2335) on the application of the overall-impression test and the principle of design freedom. The claimant argued that the defendant had taken over its registered designs for VIP interior fittings of the Mercedes Vito identically or with confusing similarity, and sought a declaration of infringement, injunctive relief, seizure of the products and material and moral damages. The first-instance court recognised that automotive interior design is a field of limited design freedom due to technical constraints and functional requirements, in which the approach known in foreign doctrine as "crowded art" must be taken into account. Despite individual points of similarity, there was accordingly a clear distance in the overall visual effect, the formal character and the overall impression on the informed user; the infringement action was dismissed and the Court of Cassation affirmed.

Together, the two decisions clarify the two-tier structure of design protection under Articles 55 et seq. of Code No. 6769, which corresponds to Article 6 of the EU Community Design Regulation: novelty rests on a one-to-one comparison with the earlier design, whereas individual character rests on the overall impression of the informed user. In Red Bull/Baisun the courts correctly found that novelty does not require complete identity of appearance, but that individual character depends on the overall visual perception – shaped by the degree of design freedom; this is consistent with the CJEU decisions PepsiCo v Grupo Promer (C-281/10 P) and Karen Millen Fashions (C-345/13). The Mercedes Vito decision in turn illustrates the "crowded art" doctrine: where technical and functional constraints narrow design freedom (cf. Easy Sanitary Solutions, C-361/15 P), even small differences can create a different overall impression. Both judgments demonstrate that Turkish practice has internalised the EU tests of the informed user and design freedom – and that individual character is an impression-based filter independent of novelty.

The Turkish IP courts apply concepts such as novelty and individual character, crowded art, technical necessity and designer's freedom of choice – much like the EUIPO or the General Court – on a case-by-case basis within the framework of expert opinions; with the right litigation strategy, we regularly achieve positive results for our clients in design infringement and invalidity proceedings.

Which design strategy is recommended for collections and production in Turkey?

For season-driven industries, a tiered model is recommended: the core pieces of a collection are registered – cost-effectively via multiple applications – while the breadth of the collection remains covered by the three-year protection of the unregistered design and by unfair competition law; bestsellers are subsequently reinforced with trademark and, where appropriate, copyright protection. Those having products manufactured in Turkey should additionally flank design protection contractually: ownership of drawings, patterns, moulds and tooling, an express prohibition of side production and the sale of surplus goods ("no side production, no overruns"), destruction and return obligations at the end of the contract, and contractual penalties. Combined with a customs application against cross-border shipments, this creates a closed protection system from the drawing board to export.

A calculation example illustrates the cost advantage of the multiple application: if twenty models of a furniture series are combined in one multiple application, one-off filing and publication fees per design apply that are considerably lower than the costs of twenty individual applications; later renewal can be effected selectively only for the commercially successful models. The deferment of publication can be synchronised with the launch calendar so that competitors first see the new series in the register at the market launch.

What are the most common mistakes in practice?

• The design is shown at trade fairs or on social media before filing and the twelve-month grace period is then missed.
• Only a single view is filed; deviating variants and colourways remain unprotected.
• The rights in commissioned designs are not settled contractually – the agency or manufacturer later claims joint rights.
• Oppositions against conflicting new registrations are not filed for lack of register monitoring; the later invalidity action is more expensive.
• Manufacturing agreements lack tooling and overrun clauses – original moulds generate "grey" goods after the contract ends.
• Non-visible components or purely function-dictated shapes are filed and collapse as unprotectable in litigation.

Conclusion

With registered and unregistered protection, multiple applications, deferred publication and its link to the Hague System, Turkish design law offers a flexible, EU-compatible toolkit. For design-driven industries, a combined strategy is recommended: registration of core products before market launch, prudent use of the grace period, cumulative trademark and copyright protection for bestsellers, and clear rights clauses in design and manufacturing agreements.

Since Turkey is both a manufacturing location and a transit market, register protection should always be combined with an enforcement strategy – monitoring, customs seizure, preliminary relief.

The IP/IT team at GEMS Schindhelm advises companies on the filing and administration of designs in Turkey, in opposition and invalidity proceedings, and on the enforcement of design rights against imitators.