E-commerce has changed the way intellectual property disputes arise in Turkey. Brand misuse, counterfeit listings, unauthorized product photos, copied descriptions, parallel imports, misleading marketplace listings, keyword advertising, and platform-based free-riding can now damage a business before a traditional infringement action reaches judgment. In Turkey, this risk is addressed through a combination of Law No. 6563 on the Regulation of Electronic Commerce, Law No. 6769 on Industrial Property, and Law No. 5846 on Intellectual and Artistic Works, supported by secondary legislation and sector-specific administrative practice. The Turkish system therefore does not treat online IP disputes as a single generic “internet problem.” It regulates marketplaces, sellers, right holders, and online uses through a layered legal framework.
For businesses operating through Turkish marketplaces or targeting Turkish consumers online, the practical question is no longer whether intellectual property law applies in e-commerce. It clearly does. The more important question is how it applies: when a marketplace must remove a listing, what evidence a right holder must submit, how a seller can object, when a listing can be restored, and how trademark and copyright remedies work outside the platform process. Turkey has built a relatively structured model for this, especially after the 2022 legislative reforms and the 2022 marketplace regulation, as later amended in 2025.
A useful way to understand the Turkish regime is to separate it into three layers. The first layer is platform regulation under the e-commerce law, especially for electronic commerce intermediary service providers operating marketplaces. The second layer is substantive IP law, especially trademark rights under the Industrial Property Code and copyright rules under Law No. 5846. The third layer is judicial and administrative enforcement, which remains available even when a marketplace complaint is filed. In Turkey, marketplace delisting is important, but it does not replace court action.
The legal framework: who regulates what?
The foundation of Turkish e-commerce law is Law No. 6563 on the Regulation of Electronic Commerce. The current consolidated legal text states that the law regulates the principles and procedures of electronic commerce and covers commercial communications, the responsibilities of service providers and intermediary service providers, contracts concluded by electronic means, information obligations, and sanctions. The Ministry of Trade is expressly authorized to implement the law, support the development of electronic commerce, protect an effective and fair competitive environment, regulate the activities of service providers and intermediary service providers, and determine mandatory elements of intermediary agreements.
The Ministry of Trade’s official e-commerce FAQ also confirms that the Regulation on Electronic Commerce Intermediary Service Providers and Electronic Commerce Service Providers was published in the Official Gazette on 29 December 2022 and entered into force on that date. The same official page explains that ETBİS-related notification rules and other e-commerce obligations continue to apply to businesses operating online. In practical terms, this means the Turkish e-commerce regime is not built only on the statute itself; it is also implemented through a detailed regulation governing marketplace practice.
On the IP side, the Industrial Property Code protects trademarks, designs, patents, utility models, geographical indications, and traditional product names, and expressly covers legal and criminal sanctions for infringement. Copyright and related rights are regulated separately under Law No. 5846. WIPO’s current record for the Turkish copyright law confirms that the law covers the moral and economic rights of authors and related right holders, the rules governing transactions over those rights, legal recourse, sanctions, and the powers of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism.
This division matters because online infringement in Turkey does not always follow the same route. A copied logo on a marketplace listing is typically a trademark issue. A stolen product image, unauthorized video, copied listing text, or pirated digital content may be a copyright issue. A deceptive listing that borrows brand prestige without using an identical mark may also trigger unfair competition analysis under general commercial law, even if the immediate platform complaint is framed through IP language. The strongest enforcement strategy usually depends on matching the right online conduct to the correct legal regime.
Key actors under Turkish e-commerce law
Turkish e-commerce law distinguishes between the electronic commerce service provider and the electronic commerce intermediary service provider. The current consolidated text of Law No. 6563 defines the electronic commerce service provider as the service provider that concludes contracts or receives orders for the supply of goods or services either on a marketplace or through its own electronic commerce environment. The same text defines the electronic commerce marketplace as the electronic commerce environment on which the intermediary service provider offers intermediation services. This distinction is legally important because, in a marketplace dispute, the seller and the platform do not carry exactly the same obligations.
In Turkish practice, the marketplace operator is commonly referred to as ETAHS, while the seller using the marketplace is the ETHS. The 2022 marketplace regulation uses these concepts throughout its IP complaint procedure. This matters because the Turkish notice-and-takedown system is not drafted in generic “host provider” language. It is drafted specifically around the relationship between the marketplace intermediary and the seller whose product is listed.
The Ministry of Trade’s official FAQ also confirms that both businesses operating their own electronic commerce environment and intermediary marketplace operators must register with ETBİS before starting operations, and that the 2022 regulation requires a service provider operating its own e-commerce environment to keep a KEP address suitable for service of process. For compliance teams, this is relevant because platform identity, traceability, and formal communication channels are part of the Turkish regulatory design.
Marketplace liability in Turkey: not a purely passive role
Turkey’s platform-liability model is more interventionist than a purely passive-host approach. Under Article 9 of Law No. 6563, an electronic commerce intermediary service provider that becomes aware that content supplied by the seller is unlawful must remove that content without delay and notify the relevant public authorities of the unlawful issue. The same article then adds a specific rule for IP disputes: where the right holder files a complaint supported by information and documents showing infringement of intellectual or industrial property rights, the intermediary service provider must remove the complained-of product from publication and notify both the seller and the right holder; if the seller later objects with information and documents showing the complaint is unfounded, the product is republished.
This is one of the most important developments in Turkish online-IP enforcement. It means the marketplace is not merely a neutral bulletin board waiting for a court order in every case. Once it receives a legally sufficient complaint, it has a statutory duty to act. But it also means the platform is not expected to make a full merits determination like a court. The law builds a document-driven notice-and-action system rather than a general judicial replacement.
The 2022 regulation makes this even clearer. It creates an entire section titled “Intellectual and Industrial Property Right Infringement” and sets out separate rules for complaint, objection, and conclusion of the complaint. In practice, the Turkish marketplace-liability model is therefore highly procedural. Whether a listing stays online or is removed often turns less on broad argument and more on whether the parties submit the required materials in the required format through the required channels.
The Turkish marketplace IP complaint procedure
The complaint procedure is defined in detail by Article 12 of the 2022 regulation. The right holder must submit the complaint to the marketplace intermediary service provider through the internal communication system, a notary, or KEP, and the complaint must include specific information. The regulation expressly requires: proof of ownership such as a TÜRKPATENT registration certificate, a banderole form issued by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, or, for certain copyright collective-management entities, a certificate of activity; identifying and contact information of the complainant; the reasons and evidence showing that the listed product infringes the relevant IP right; the internet address of the product listing; and a statement accepting responsibility for losses if the submitted information and documents are inaccurate. The marketplace must reject incomplete complaints and inform the complainant of the deficiencies.
This documentary threshold is important for right holders. A generic email saying “this listing is fake” is not enough under the Turkish regulation. The complaint must be framed as a legally supported application. That makes the Turkish regime more formal than many informal platform-reporting systems used globally. It is also one reason why businesses enforcing IP in Turkey should prepare standardized complaint packs in advance rather than improvising after infringement appears.
The timing rule is equally important. Article 12 states that the marketplace intermediary must remove the complained-of product from publication without delay and, in any event, within forty-eight hours from receiving the complaint, and must notify both the seller and the right holder. The notification to the seller must also explain how to object. This short deadline means Turkish marketplaces are expected to respond quickly once a complaint is properly filed.
Seller objection and relisting
Turkish law also protects sellers against abusive or mistaken complaints. Under Article 13 of the regulation, the seller whose product was removed may object through the internal communication system, a notary, or KEP. The objection must include the seller’s identity details or corporate information, the grounds for the objection, documents showing that the product does not infringe the complainant’s intellectual or industrial property rights, and, importantly, documents such as invoices or equivalent records and contracts or other materials showing the chain back to the right holder or to someone authorized by the right holder to place the product on the market. The seller must also include a statement accepting responsibility for losses if the objection materials are inaccurate.
This chain-of-title requirement is highly significant in online trade. It means a seller cannot normally defeat an IP complaint through bare denial alone. The Turkish system expects documentary support showing originality, lawful sourcing, or authorization. In practical terms, a seller operating in Turkey should be ready to prove where the product came from and how it entered lawful commerce.
The marketplace’s relisting duty is also tightly regulated. Under Article 14, if it is clearly understood from the materials submitted with the objection that the seller is justified, the marketplace must republish the complained-of product within twenty-four hours of receiving the objection and must notify both sides without delay. The regulation also states that the marketplace may refuse repeat complaints about the same product and same allegation unless new evidence proving IP infringement is submitted, and that the marketplace’s review is limited to examining the documents obtained from the seller. Finally, the regulation expressly preserves the parties’ right to go to judicial and administrative authorities under the general rules.
Taken together, these provisions create a recognizable Turkish notice, removal, counter-notice, relisting model for marketplace IP disputes. It is not identical to the DMCA or to other foreign systems, but functionally it operates as a formalized notice-and-action regime with short deadlines, documentary burdens, and preserved access to court.
Seller verification and traceability obligations
Marketplace liability in Turkey is also shaped by seller-verification rules. Under the current text of Law No. 6563, the electronic commerce intermediary service provider must verify the seller’s identifying information using documents received from the seller or open electronic systems of relevant authorities. This obligation matters because effective IP enforcement on marketplaces depends partly on whether the operator can reliably identify who is actually behind the listing.
In practice, this verification duty reduces the ability of sellers to hide behind purely anonymous listings. It also strengthens the evidentiary position of right holders who later decide to move from platform complaint to formal court action. A marketplace system that collects and verifies core seller information can make later enforcement materially easier, even if the platform itself is not the principal infringer.
Search engine marketing, keyword use, and brand bidding restrictions
Turkish e-commerce law does not stop at listing removal. It also regulates certain uses of registered marks in online advertising. The current consolidated text of Law No. 6563 states that an electronic commerce intermediary service provider or electronic commerce service provider cannot engage in online search-engine marketing and promotion activities by using the registered marks that form the main element of another ETAHS’s or ETHS’s ETBİS-registered domain name, unless it has received prior positive consent in writing or electronically. The same text imposes an equivalent restriction directly on electronic commerce service providers in relation to marks forming the main element of ETBİS-registered domain names of persons outside their own economic integrity.
This is highly relevant for digital brand protection. In many online disputes, the first commercial harm is not a fake listing but aggressive search-engine bidding, misleading sponsored results, or marketing that captures demand intended for another trader. Turkish law therefore moves beyond classic product-listing disputes and addresses a narrower but commercially important category of keyword-based or search-based brand exploitation.
Larger marketplace operators and self-preferencing risks
The Turkish e-commerce regime also contains competition-sensitive marketplace rules that indirectly affect IP and online-brand strategy. Under Additional Article 2 of Law No. 6563, the electronic commerce intermediary service provider is subject to a group of marketplace obligations, and larger operators face additional data-use and conduct restrictions. The current text states, among other things, that the intermediary cannot offer for sale on the marketplace goods bearing its own mark or the marks of persons within its economic integrity, or mediate the sale of those goods there. It also states that, for operators above the statutory threshold, data obtained from sellers and buyers may be used only for providing intermediation services and may not be used to compete with the sellers; those sellers must also be given technical facilities enabling them to access and carry their own sales data and processed data effectively and free of charge.
For IP owners, these rules matter because online infringement is not always a simple counterfeit problem. It can also take the form of self-preferencing, data-driven imitation, and platform-enabled erosion of brand position. Turkish law increasingly addresses marketplace power and brand use together, rather than treating them as entirely separate regulatory worlds.
Trademark infringement online under the Industrial Property Code
Marketplace procedure is only one side of the story. The substantive trademark law remains crucial. Under Article 7 of the Industrial Property Code, the owner of a registered trademark has the right to prevent unauthorized use of identical signs for registered goods or services, confusingly similar signs for identical or similar goods or services, and, for marks that have reached a reputation level in Turkey, certain unjustified uses on identical, similar, or different goods or services that take unfair advantage of the mark’s reputation or harm its reputation or distinctiveness. The same provision then lists internet-specific prohibited forms of commercial use, including use of the sign or a similar sign as a domain name, redirect code, keyword, or similar internet form, provided the user lacks a right or legitimate connection to that use.
That internet-language is extremely important for e-commerce disputes. It means the Turkish trademark owner is not confined to offline product packaging or storefront uses. Domain names, redirects, and keywords can all fall within the substantive reach of trademark law. In an online marketplace context, this can strengthen the right holder’s position where the infringement is tied not only to the listing itself but also to the digital traffic strategy behind it.
The Industrial Property Code also identifies classic trademark-infringement acts in Article 29, including unauthorized use in the forms listed in Article 7, counterfeiting the trademark by using the mark or an indistinguishably similar mark without authorization, and commercial sale, distribution, import, export, or possession of infringing goods where the person knows or should know the mark is counterfeit. For online trade, that means the legal risk does not end with the platform interface; the seller’s deeper commercial conduct still matters under substantive trademark law.
Copyright infringement online in Turkey
Online IP disputes in Turkey are not only about trademarks. Copyright remains central, especially for product photographs, listing text, videos, graphics, software, databases, and digital media. The Ministry of Culture and Tourism’s copyright information pages confirm that copyright arises automatically with creation and that infringement may be pursued through civil or criminal proceedings. The Ministry’s official FAQ also states plainly that publication of a work on the internet does not mean it may be used freely without permission.
Turkish copyright law also contains a specific online-enforcement mechanism. WIPO’s current English text of Law No. 5846 states that where the rights of authors or related right holders are violated by service providers and content providers through the transmission of signs, sounds, or images, including digital transmission, the infringing works must be removed from the content upon the application of the right holders. The text further states that the right holder must first contact the content provider and request cessation within three days; if the violation continues, the next step is to apply to the public prosecutor so that the relevant service provider suspends the service to the content provider within three days. The service is restored if the violation ceases.
This mechanism is different from the marketplace delisting system under Law No. 6563. The marketplace regime is platform-specific and document-driven, with 48-hour removal and 24-hour relisting rules. The copyright regime under Law No. 5846 is a broader online content-removal and escalation system involving the content provider, the service provider, and, if necessary, the public prosecutor. In practice, businesses dealing with copied product images or pirated digital content in Turkey should identify which route fits the facts best rather than assuming all online IP complaints follow one single notice form.
ETBİS, visibility, and compliance infrastructure
While ETBİS is not itself an IP registry, it is part of the Turkish e-commerce compliance infrastructure. The Ministry of Trade’s FAQ states that electronic commerce service providers operating through their own environment and electronic commerce intermediary service providers must register in ETBİS before starting operations. The same FAQ also explains that relevant businesses must provide certain operational information, including their KEP address, the kind of e-commerce activity they conduct, payment methods, logistics information, and data-location information, and that businesses engaged in e-commerce through their own environment must provide production-site and warehouse addresses as well.
For IP strategy, ETBİS matters in two ways. First, ETBİS registration is part of the legal identity framework of the business and therefore interacts with seller verification, notice delivery, and brand-use restrictions. Second, the law’s search-engine marketing restrictions are tied to marks forming the main element of an ETBİS-registered domain name, which means ETBİS status is relevant even in trademark-advertising disputes. In Turkey, online brand protection therefore sits partly inside a broader regulatory architecture rather than only inside classic IP statutes.
Practical enforcement strategy for right holders
For right holders, the Turkish system rewards preparation. A business that wants to enforce against marketplace infringement should usually have, at minimum, a clear Turkish trademark registration record where applicable, a complaint pack with evidence of the infringing listing, a lawful-source comparison file, and a process for rapid submission through the channels recognized by the regulation. If the problem is copyright rather than trademark, it should also be ready to identify the correct content provider and use the copyright-specific removal route where appropriate. These are practical implications of the Turkish complaint structures rather than optional best practices.
A second practical rule is to preserve evidence before and after delisting. In Turkey, a fast marketplace removal can be helpful, but it can also make later proof harder if screenshots, URLs, seller information, product images, and transactional indicators were not captured first. A business planning for Turkish enforcement should therefore think about litigation evidence at the same time as platform relief.
A third rule is to decide early whether the real objective is removal, source tracing, damages, injunctive relief, or reputational control. The marketplace process can remove or restore listings quickly, but it does not replace judicial remedies. The regulation expressly preserves the right to apply to judicial and administrative authorities, and the Industrial Property Code and copyright law continue to supply the substantive basis for litigation and formal enforcement.
Final thoughts
E-commerce and intellectual property in Turkey now operate through an integrated legal environment. Law No. 6563 and its 2022 regulation create a marketplace-specific complaint, removal, objection, and relisting regime. The Industrial Property Code gives substantive protection against online trademark infringement, including domain names, redirect codes, keywords, and other internet-based uses. Law No. 5846 adds a separate online-removal mechanism for copyright violations involving service and content providers. And the Ministry of Trade’s ETBİS and compliance framework gives the system traceability and formal structure.
For businesses selling online in or into Turkey, the practical message is simple: do not treat online infringement as a purely platform-managed customer-service issue. In Turkey, it is a regulated legal process. The businesses that perform best are usually the ones that understand the distinction between seller and marketplace obligations, prepare complaint documentation in advance, preserve evidence early, and use the right combination of marketplace remedies and formal IP enforcement when the dispute escalates.
Yanıt yok