The cosmetics industry is a highly competitive space where global brands and local Turkish manufacturers often share the same shelves. Lipsticks, foundations, serums, sunscreens, haircare products… Many of these may look “similar” on the outside, but behind them there are often patent-protected formulas, production processes and packaging technologies.
This reality naturally leads to patent infringement disputes between foreign global cosmetic giants and local Turkish producers. The key legal question is:
In which situations does liability arise, and for whom?
Below we analyse – from the perspective of local manufacturers, brand owners, contract manufacturers, importers and distributors – the critical scenarios that may constitute patent infringement and the legal framework of liability in such disputes.
1. Is the Foreign Cosmetic Company’s Patent Actually Valid in Türkiye?
The first question that is often overlooked in international disputes is:
“Is this patent valid and enforceable in Türkiye?”
A cosmetic giant’s patent in the US, EU or another country does not automatically grant protection in Türkiye. In broad terms:
- For a patent to be enforceable in Türkiye, the right holder must have:
- a national Turkish patent registration, or
- extended an international/regional application (e.g. via PCT/EPC route) so that the patent is validated in Türkiye.
The mere fact that a brand is “world-famous” or a formula is “known worldwide” does not by itself mean that there is patent protection in Türkiye.
Therefore, before a foreign brand can credibly claim “you are infringing my patent” against a local manufacturer, it must first be established whether:
- the patent exists and is in force,
- the scope of protection covers the accused product, and
- the patent has legal effect in Türkiye.
For a local manufacturer, this is also the first issue that should be checked.
2. When Can a Local Manufacturer Be Liable for Patent Infringement?
Where a patent is valid in Türkiye, which acts of a local manufacturer can constitute patent infringement?
In general, using a patented invention without the patentee’s consent by:
- making/producing it,
- using it,
- selling or offering it for sale,
- importing it, or
- keeping it for one of these purposes
may amount to infringement.
In the cosmetic sector, typical high-risk behaviours include:
- Producing in Türkiye a product that closely follows a global brand’s patented formula, with only minor tweaks, and marketing it as a “similar product”.
- Using patented combinations of active ingredients or special carrier systems (for example emulsion structures designed to enhance skin penetration) without authorisation.
- Copying a patented dosage pump, “airless” packaging or special applicator mechanism and placing it on the market with one’s own brand.
The critical point is this: whether the local entity produces under its own brand or acts as a private label / contract manufacturer for others, it is still the party that technically implements the patented solution on the production line. That makes its potential liability broad.
3. “I Am Only a Contract Manufacturer”: How Does Liability Arise in Contract Manufacturing?
A significant share of local Turkish companies produce cosmetics on a contract / private label basis for other brands, domestic or foreign. A common defence in disputes is:
“The brand gave us the formula, we just produced it; liability is theirs.”
Legally, the situation is not that simple.
If a patented formula or technical solution is:
- physically manufactured
- on the local factory’s lines,
then the contract manufacturer is, in fact, the party carrying out the act of “making” the patented invention.
Therefore, even if:
- the formula was supplied by the brand owner, and
- the product is marketed under someone else’s name,
the manufacturer may still be considered a direct infringer alongside the brand owner.
Factors that may influence how liability is allocated in practice include:
- Does the manufacturer have contractual clauses whereby the brand warrants that the formula does not infringe third-party rights?
- Has the manufacturer warned the brand about potential patent risks in writing?
- To what extent did the manufacturer contribute to the formula and packaging design?
These elements do not remove liability vis-à-vis the foreign patentee, but they are relevant in the internal relationship between brand and manufacturer when it comes to recourse and indemnity.
4. Liability of Local Brand Owners, Importers and Distributors: Sales, Imports and Marketing
In some cases, the local entity does not produce at all; it only engages in import, distribution and sale. A typical argument is:
“We did not manufacture it; we only sold it.”
From a patent law perspective, this is not always a safe harbour. As noted, infringing acts include importing, offering for sale and selling a patented product.
Thus, the following entities may also be drawn into the infringement net:
- the importer,
- the wholesaler/distributor,
- retailers and online platforms, depending on the legal system and role.
The risk is particularly high where:
- The global patent holder has expressly notified the local distributor that the product falls within its patent and constitutes infringement, but the distributor continues selling regardless.
- The local brand owner is aware of patent risks concerning a formula used in contract manufacturing, yet persists in aggressive marketing and does not change or reformulate the product.
- There are previous disputes or warnings showing that the same product infringes patents in the target market, and despite this, the local company continues importing under a “nothing will happen to us” approach.
In such situations, importers and distributors may be considered to knowingly participate in the infringing activity, with corresponding legal consequences.
5. The Fine Line Between “Similar Product Development” and Patent Infringement
In cosmetics, it is normal for companies to be inspired by successful market products and to develop items with similar effects. The challenge is maintaining the line between:
- “developing a similar product”, and
- “copying a patented technical solution”.
A risky approach looks like this:
- A popular global serum or foundation is sent to a lab,
- The formula is reverse engineered as far as possible,
- Minor changes are made, but essentially the same technical solution is used and presented as a new technology.
If a valid patent covers the original formulation or technology, this is a classic case of reverse-engineering-based patent infringement.
A safer approach is:
- Analyse competitor products in terms of market positioning and performance,
- Then develop a distinct technical solution based on your own R&D, using different actives, carriers and ratios,
- Where appropriate, perform a “freedom to operate” (FTO) assessment for high-risk categories.
In short, the objective should not be “make the same thing”, but solve the same problem by different technical means.
6. When Is the Local Turkish Producer’s Liability Considered More Serious?
In practice, the following factors often aggravate a local producer’s liability in patent infringement cases:
6.1 Continuing Infringement Despite Clear Warnings
- The global brand has sent a formal cease-and-desist letter referring to its patent(s) and explaining the alleged infringement,
- It has provided sample products and technical explanations,
- Yet the local manufacturer or brand owner continues production and sales.
Courts may view this as an indicator of wilful or knowing infringement.
6.2 Internal Records Showing Awareness of the Patent
- R&D reports, internal emails or meeting minutes show that the relevant patent was known,
- There are records such as “let’s tweak this global brand’s patent slightly so we can use the same technology”.
Such evidence suggests that the infringement was not accidental but conscious and strategic, which may influence both liability and damages.
6.3 Marketing and Communication Clearly Aiming to Imitate
- The local product is marketed as “the equivalent of world-famous Brand X” or “same effect as Brand Y at a lower price”,
- Packaging, naming and overall positioning are deliberately crafted to evoke the foreign brand and its patented technology.
These elements can be used to support a broader picture of copying and free-riding, relevant not only for patent law but also for unfair competition and trademark issues.
7. Risk Management and Protection Strategies for Local Manufacturers and Brands
To avoid unnecessary conflict with global players and manage patent risks, local cosmetic companies can adopt several key strategies:
7.1 Patent Searches Before Product Development
Especially in high-value segments such as:
- anti-ageing serums,
- sunscreens,
- dermocosmetic products,
- specialised haircare lines,
it is advisable, before full product development, to:
- search patent databases regarding the active ingredients,
- identify patented carrier/emulsion systems,
- check special packaging technologies (e.g. airless pumps, dosage systems).
It is also helpful to understand, at least at a high level, the patent portfolios of major global players in the relevant sub-segment.
7.2 Contractual Allocation of Risk
In contract manufacturing relationships:
- Agreements may specify that:
- the formula is provided by the brand,
- the brand warrants that the formula does not infringe third-party rights,
- the brand will indemnify the manufacturer in case of patent infringement claims.
Likewise, contracts with ingredient suppliers and packaging manufacturers can include similar warranties and indemnities.
These clauses do not remove liability towards the patent owner, but they are crucial for the internal allocation of financial risk between the parties.
7.3 Building a Legal and Technical Compliance Culture
- Provide basic patent law awareness training to R&D staff,
- Encourage the mindset that in certain categories (especially where global brands lead), the use of “plug-and-play” foreign technology is more likely to be patented and risky,
- For new product launches in high-risk areas, implement a short joint review by legal and R&D teams to assess the potential infringement risk.
Such a compliance culture is often the most cost-effective risk management tool.
8. Conclusion: In the Face of Global Cosmetic Giants, the Local Manufacturer’s Strongest Weapons Are Knowledge and Strategy
In patent infringement disputes between global foreign cosmetic giants and local Turkish manufacturers, liability is not determined solely by asking “who wrote the formula?”.
Courts and parties will look at:
- whether the patent is valid and enforceable in Türkiye,
- the nature and extent of the local party’s acts (production, import, sale, promotion),
- the contractual framework for contract manufacturing, private label, import and distribution,
- whether the alleged infringement was knowing and deliberate or the result of negligence.
For local manufacturers and brands, the healthiest approach is to:
- integrate patent and industrial property awareness into product development from the outset,
- support contract manufacturing, supply and distribution relationships with clear contractual safeguards,
- seek technical and legal advice in high-risk areas instead of waiting until a dispute has already arisen.
Handled in this way, a local Turkish producer can position itself in the heart of global competition,
protect its own innovations,
avoid unnecessary conflict with legitimate rights of global players,
and build a legally robust and sustainable growth strategy in the cosmetics sector.
Yanıt yok