Trademark and Product Piracy: Enforcement in Turkey

As a major manufacturing and transit hub, Turkey is also one of the focal points of the international trade in counterfeit goods. For trademark owners, the consistent fight against counterfeits is therefore a permanent task – all the more so as Turkish law provides a comparatively sharp set of instruments: criminal prosecution with search and seizure, civil claims with preliminary relief, and customs seizure at the border. This article shows how these instruments interlock and how an effective enforcement strategy is built.

Table of contents

• Why is Turkey particularly important for anti-piracy enforcement?
• How does criminal prosecution work as the fastest lever?
• What civil claims and urgent measures are available?
• How does customs seizure at the border work?
• How does one proceed against online piracy?
• How is an effective enforcement strategy built?
• How does a raid unfold in practice?
• What role do settlements and delimitation agreements play?
• How are costs, priorities and programme success managed?
• How does customs seizure work in practice?
• Why are the customs application and immediate intervention strategically decisive?
• Conclusion

Why is Turkey particularly important for anti-piracy enforcement?

A considerable share of the counterfeit goods appearing on European markets originates from Turkish production or passes through Turkey in transit between Asia and Europe. Whoever fights counterfeits only in the destination market intervenes too late: the source – manufacturers, assemblers, wholesalers and exporters – is frequently located in Turkey, and that is where intervention is most effective. The precondition of any enforcement is local protection: in particular, the trademark must be registered in Turkey, since foreign registrations have no effect there. Trademark registration is thus not only a marketing asset but above all the foundation of enforcement.

How does criminal prosecution work as the fastest lever?

Intentional trademark infringement is a criminal offence under Code No. 6769: whoever manufactures, sells, imports, exports, commercially possesses or transports goods in infringement of a registered trademark is punished with imprisonment of one to three years and a judicial fine; higher ranges apply to qualified cases. Prosecution requires a criminal complaint by the right holder.

The practical sequence: after identifying the infringer – frequently through test purchases and market investigations – the trademark owner files a criminal complaint with the public prosecutor's office; on this basis, judicial search and seizure orders are issued and executed by the police. Warehouses and production sites can be searched, counterfeits and production equipment seized. This procedure is regularly the fastest and most deterrent form of intervention, because it reaches the infringer physically and takes the goods out of circulation immediately. Important both for the defence perspective of Turkish suppliers and for attack planning: sellers can exculpate themselves by disclosing the origin of the goods and thus contributing to the apprehension of the manufacturers. Upon conviction, destruction of the counterfeits is ordered.

What civil claims and urgent measures are available?

In parallel or alternatively, civil claims are available before the specialised IP courts: injunctive relief, removal, destruction, information, and damages – calculated at the claimant's option by reference to lost profits, the infringer's profits or a hypothetical licence fee, plus moral damages and, where appropriate, publication of the judgment. Preliminary relief is of central importance: with evidence preservation ("delil tespiti"), stocks and records can be formally established; with preliminary injunctions, production, distribution and trade fair appearances can be stopped and goods seized. Trade fairs in particular – Turkey is a major exhibition venue for textiles, furniture and machinery – are an effective point of attack for striking imitators directly at their stands with judicial assistance.

How does customs seizure at the border work?

Right holders can file a central application for action with the Turkish customs administration, depositing their IP rights, original product features and identification guidance. On this basis – and also ex officio in the case of obvious counterfeits – customs detains suspicious consignments upon import, export and in transit and notifies the right holder. The right holder must, within a short period – in principle ten working days, three for perishable goods – demonstrate that court proceedings or a preliminary measure have been initiated in order for the goods to remain detained; under the conditions of the simplified procedure, destruction can take place without litigation with the consent of the person entitled to dispose of the goods. Customs seizure is inexpensive, preventive and particularly valuable against transit goods destined for the EU market; the application should be renewed regularly and kept up to date with current product information.

How does one proceed against online piracy?

Against counterfeit offers on Turkish e-commerce platforms, the platforms' notice-and-takedown mechanisms are available; e-commerce law obliges electronic marketplaces to act upon notification by the right holder and to remove infringing offers. In addition, information claims against platforms and payment service providers, preliminary injunctions against traders and – in the case of persistent foreign sites – access blocking may come into consideration. Effective programmes combine automated monitoring (marketplaces, social media, domains) with graduated response levels from takedown notices through warning letters to criminal and civil proceedings against those behind the operations; test purchases secure the evidence for the subsequent proceedings.

How is an effective enforcement strategy built?

• Create the IP basis: register trademarks (and relevant designs) in Turkey, keep the portfolio current, document use.
• File and maintain the customs application; provide training material for customs officers on identification features.
• Establish market and online monitoring; keep a targeted watch on the sector's trade fairs.
• Set priorities: sources (manufacturers, exporters) before street vendors; prosecute repeat offenders consistently under criminal law.
• Professionalise evidence management: documented test purchases, notarial determinations, an unbroken chain of custody.
• Involve distribution partners: contractual reporting and support obligations, clear rules for grey-market goods.

How does a raid unfold in practice?

The typical sequence of a criminal action can be summarised in five steps. First, the suspicion is substantiated through documented test purchases and market investigations – with photos, receipts and, where possible, notarial determination. The trademark owner then files a criminal complaint through its lawyers with the locally competent public prosecutor's office, submitting the trademark certificates and an expert statement on the counterfeit nature of the goods. On the prosecutor's application, the criminal judge of the peace issues the search and seizure order, which is executed by the police – often within a few days; representatives of the trademark owner can be called in to identify the goods. The seized goods are stored and examined; in parallel, the investigation against those responsible begins. In the subsequent criminal trial, conviction and destruction of the goods are obtained – or the pressure of the proceedings is used for a settlement with cease-and-desist, information and cost components. The speed of this sequence – often only one to two weeks from filing to raid – makes it the backbone of anti-piracy enforcement.

What role do settlements and delimitation agreements play?

Not every case has to be litigated to the end: against smaller traders, cease-and-desist declarations secured by contractual penalties, with destruction and information undertakings, are often the most efficient conclusion, while the full range of instruments should be deployed against manufacturers and exporters. Settlements should regulate contractual penalties for repeat cases, disclosure of the supply chain and allocation of costs. At the same time, proportion is required: unjustified or excessive warnings can themselves trigger unfair competition claims; the IP position must be carefully verified before any action.

How are costs, priorities and programme success managed?

Anti-piracy programmes compete internally for budgets; their management should therefore be data-driven. Prioritisation by damage leverage has proven effective: actions against manufacturers, assemblers and exporters have many times the effect of individual measures against street vendors, because they dry up entire distribution chains; customs seizures on export prevent losses in the higher-margin EU markets. The costs of the individual instruments are graduated – takedown notices and customs procedures are inexpensive, criminal proceedings moderate, civil actions with damages the most costly – suggesting a response pyramid: broad, automated base measures at the bottom, targeted proceedings against the relevant sources at the top. Suitable success metrics are seized quantities, repeat offender rates, the development of online offer numbers and procedural turnaround times; they make the programme's value visible to management and steer resource allocation.

How does customs seizure work in practice?

The key role of customs seizure for trademark protection is vividly illustrated by the judgment of the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal (44th Civil Chamber, E. 2025/1273, K. 2026/387, judgment of 5 March 2026): after 1,632 pairs of counterfeit sports shoes bearing world-famous trademarks had been secured at customs, a declaration of trademark infringement and unfair competition was sought.

The court rejected the importer's defence that the goods had been "loaded by mistake": as a prudent merchant, it should have known the nature of the products it was importing; trademark infringement and unfair competition were thus established. Destruction of the goods and moral damages in favour of the claimant were ordered. The transport company, by contrast, bore no liability, because it had taken over the container sealed and closed and could not know its contents. The case shows: the direct responsibility arising from customs seizure falls on the importer.

Why are the customs application and immediate intervention strategically decisive?

We file the applications for customs protection of our clients' trademarks. When goods bearing our clients' products are detained at customs, we go to the customs office without delay, examine the goods, take samples and send our clients the photo documentation – enabling them to proceed with their legal steps without loss of time and to exercise their rights effectively.

In customs detentions, immediate intervention is what counts – as is acting swiftly within the statutory deadlines if action is to be taken against the goods. The customs application and the goods seized at customs also send a strong signal to counterfeiters, the customs authorities and the sector concerned: trademark rights are enforced consistently and resolutely.

For clients who were initially counterfeited on a massive scale, we have observed a marked decline in counterfeiting cases following our enforcement measures at customs and in the market – evidence that systematic and professional intervention delivers concrete and lasting benefits to trademark owners.

Conclusion

Turkey offers trademark owners an unusually powerful enforcement arsenal: criminal search and seizure, civil preliminary relief with evidence preservation, and a functioning customs seizure system – provided the IP rights are registered locally. Manufacturers affected by Turkey as a source and transit country who leave it out of their anti-piracy strategy fight symptoms instead of causes.

What decides success is system: a registered portfolio, a well-maintained customs application, continuous monitoring, professional evidence management and a response graduated by type of infringer. In this way, counterfeit flows can be measurably reduced before they reach the European target markets.

The IP/IT team at GEMS Schindhelm supports trademark owners in the fight against product and trademark piracy in Turkey – from customs applications and monitoring through criminal raids and preliminary injunctions to settlement and destruction agreements.