Domain Law in Turkey

The internet domain is address, shop window and business identifier at once. For the Turkish country-code extension ".tr", a fundamentally renewed regime has applied since the launch of the central registration system TRABİS in 2022: the coveted second-level domains under ".tr" were opened for free registration, allocation follows the first-come, first-served principle, and a fast out-of-court procedure modelled on the UDRP is available for disputes. For trademark owners this means opportunities – and an increased cybersquatting risk that demands active domain management.

Table of contents

• How is the allocation of .tr domains organised?
• Who can register which domains?
• Domain and trademark law: when does a domain infringe third-party rights?
• How does the out-of-court dispute procedure (UÇHS) work?
• How is bad faith proven?
• When is the court route advisable?
• What does an effective domain strategy for companies look like?
• What are the most common mistakes in practice?
• How does one proceed against unauthorised "service partner" websites and domains? An example from practice
• Conclusion

How is the allocation of .tr domains organised?

Administration of the country-code extension ".tr" lies with the telecommunications authority BTK, which operates the central system TRABİS (".tr Ağ Bilgi Sistemi"); registration is effected through accredited registrars. With the launch of TRABİS, the previously restrictive, document-based allocation was replaced: domains under ".com.tr", ".net.tr" and ".org.tr" have since been allocated on a first-come, first-served basis without proof of company or trademark rights, and direct second-level registration under ".tr" has also been opened in stages. Special zones such as ".gov.tr", ".edu.tr", ".bel.tr" or ".av.tr", reserved for particular institutions and professions, remain subject to documentation. For companies, the liberalisation means: the former de facto protection provided by document review has gone – whoever does not register its own identifiers leaves them to the faster mover.

Who can register which domains?

Registration is open to domestic and foreign natural and legal persons; a seat in Turkey is not required for the general zones. Domains are registered for one to five years and are renewable; changes of holder and transfers are possible via TRABİS. Attention must be paid to the accuracy of the holder data – false particulars endanger the existence of the registration – and to organisational allocation within the company: domains should be registered to the company, not to employees or agencies, and the access credentials belong in central IP management.

Domain and trademark law: when does a domain infringe third-party rights?

Registering a domain confers no identifier right of its own; but it can infringe the rights of others. Under the Industrial Property Code, the use of a sign identical or confusingly similar to a trademark as a domain name in the course of trade constitutes trademark infringement which the proprietor can prohibit. In addition, trade names and business identifiers can offer protection against unauthorised use in domains via the Commercial Code and unfair competition law; typical case groups are cybersquatting (registration of third-party marks for blocking or resale), typosquatting (misspelling domains) and phishing scenarios. Conversely: one's own domain use should be underpinned by corresponding trademark applications in order to secure the priority position.

How does the out-of-court dispute procedure (UÇHS) work?

For disputes over ".tr" domains, an out-of-court procedure before accredited dispute resolution providers ("Uyuşmazlık Çözüm Hizmet Sağlayıcı" – UÇHS) is available, modelled on the international UDRP. The complainant must show cumulatively that the domain is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark, trade name or other identifier, that the holder has no right or legitimate interest in the domain, and that the registration or use is in bad faith. The complaint is decided by one or three experts of the dispute resolution provider in a written procedure designed to last a few weeks; the possible outcomes are transfer or cancellation of the domain, implemented via TRABİS. The procedure is fast and cost-efficient and has established itself as the first remedy against cybersquatting; recourse to the state courts remains possible alongside and suspends or supersedes the expert procedure.

How is bad faith proven?

The outcome of the dispute procedure regularly turns on the third element – the bad faith of the registration or use. The practice of the dispute resolution providers follows the internationally recognised case groups: the domain was registered recognisably for resale to the right holder or a competitor; it systematically blocks the trademark owner, particularly in registration patterns spanning several third-party marks; it is intended to divert users to own offers, competing products or advertising pages through likelihood of confusion; or it serves phishing and fraud purposes. Evidence is provided by sale offers and price demands of the holder, parked pages with unrelated advertising, the temporal proximity of the registration to trademark filings or media reports, and earlier UÇHS proceedings against the same holder. Conversely, the domain holder is exculpated by its own earlier rights, the demonstrable preparation of a bona fide offering and descriptive terms without identifier significance. For the complainant this means: secure evidence before filing – screenshots of the use, sale offers, registration histories – because cybersquatters frequently change their appearance once the complaint is served.

When is the court route advisable?

Before the state courts – for trademark infringements, the specialised IP courts – injunctive relief, removal and damages as well as preliminary measures including blocking the use of the domain can be obtained beyond the transfer of the domain. The court route is advisable in particular where further infringing acts beyond the domain (a shop with counterfeits, reputation-damaging content) must be stopped, where damages are at stake, or where bad faith would be difficult to establish in the expert procedure. Against foreign domains outside the ".tr" zone, the international procedures (UDRP/WIPO) are available, supplemented by the instruments of Law No. 5651 – up to the access blocking of infringing sites.

What does an effective domain strategy for companies look like?

• Register core identifiers defensively: house marks and main products under ".tr" and ".com.tr" as well as in common spelling variants and typo forms
• Create the trademark basis: Turkish trademark applications as the foundation of any action against domain abuse
• Establish monitoring: watch new registrations for collisions with the company's own identifiers
• Secure governance: central registration to the company, documented access, renewal management, clear agency agreements
• Define a response ladder: warning letter – UÇHS complaint – court proceedings, depending on severity and evidence
• In corporate acquisitions: include domains expressly in the transaction documentation and the transfer implementation

What are the most common mistakes in practice?

• The trademark is not filed in Turkey – without a Turkish trademark basis, the UÇHS procedure lacks its foundation.
• Domains are held by employees, agencies or the local distributor; in a falling-out, the company's own address becomes a hostage.
• Renewals are managed decentrally and missed – the released domain is registered by third parties within hours.
• Typo and transliteration variants remain free and are used for phishing against the company's own customers.
• Evidence of bad faith is not secured before the complaint; the parked page is "empty" on the day of service.
• After a successful procedure, the transfer is not implemented or the domain is not moved into central portfolio management.

How does one proceed against unauthorised "service partner" websites and domains? An example from practice

In the judgment of the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal (44th Civil Chamber, E. 2023/811, K. 2025/1494, judgment of 13 November 2025), the claimant Trademark Holding AB argued that its trademarks, well known in Turkey and worldwide, were being used by the defendants without authorisation: through the domains www...net and www...com, through social media accounts and with the designation "İstanbul ... Servisi" at their business premises, the defendants presented themselves as if they were connected with the claimant's trademarks, created the impression among consumers of an authorised service partner and thereby generated unjustified revenues. The first-instance court upheld the claim and ordered the cessation of the trademark-infringing and unfair competitive acts, the confiscation of the signs and advertising materials, and the access block. On appeal, the court rejected the defendants' jurisdiction and standing objections and confirmed the finding for the claimant; only on the access block and the deletion of the trade name did it consider specific corrections necessary. As a result, it is finally established that the defendants' unauthorised trademark use constitutes trademark infringement and unfair competition.

The decision is a strong example of judicial protection of well-known trademarks: the court emphasised that the identical, unauthorised use of the claimant's trademark misleads consumers despite the addition "independent service", creates the impression of an authorised service partner and unfairly exploits the reputation of the mark. Even socially insured employees of a simple partnership can be liable if they actually use the mark. The attempt of small businesses to attract customers with the pull of well-known brands enjoys no legal protection – any use impairing the distinctive character of the mark is trademark infringement.

The unauthorised use of household appliance brands such as Siemens or Bosch and of automotive brands such as BMW, Mercedes or Audi by independent workshops and service businesses is widespread. When a client approaches us about such an infringement, we first examine the nature of the use and whether it crosses the infringement threshold – in our experience from many cases, precisely this preliminary assessment contributes substantially to a positive outcome.

Conclusion

With TRABİS, the ".tr" world has become more liberal, faster – and riskier: the first-come, first-served principle rewards speed, and the abolition of document review has made cybersquatting easier. Against this stands an efficient dispute resolution system that can put trademark owners in possession of the domain within weeks – provided the Turkish trademark basis is in place.

Companies should therefore register their identifiers proactively, manage the domain portfolio centrally and pursue infringements consistently along the graduated response ladder. The domain strategy belongs as a fixed building block in Turkish IP management.

The IP/IT team at GEMS Schindhelm advises companies on the registration, administration and defence of .tr domains, conducts dispute resolution and court proceedings against cybersquatting, and integrates the domain portfolio into the trademark and IP strategy.