Intellectual Property Arbitration in Turkey: Trademark, Patent and Licensing Claims

Intellectual property arbitration in Turkey is becoming increasingly relevant for brand owners, patent holders, technology companies, manufacturers, distributors, franchise networks, universities, research institutions, investors and multinational corporate groups.

Intellectual property assets are frequently commercialised through complex contractual structures. A trademark may be licensed to a local distributor. A patent may be used under a technology-transfer agreement. A pharmaceutical company may grant manufacturing rights for a particular territory. A university may license an invention developed through research. A foreign brand may enter the Turkish market through a franchise, master licence or joint venture.

When the commercial relationship deteriorates, the dispute may involve questions such as:

• Whether a trademark or patent licence remains valid;
• Whether the licence is exclusive or non-exclusive;
• Whether the licensee exceeded the agreed territory or field of use;
• Whether royalties were calculated correctly;
• Whether sublicensing was authorised;
• Whether the licensee maintained the required quality standards;
• Whether licensed products infringe third-party rights;
• Whether the licensor actually owned the registered right;
• Whether improvements belong to the licensor or licensee;
• Whether the licensee may continue using the right after termination;
• Whether a registered trademark or patent is valid;
• Whether an arbitral tribunal can order cancellation of a TÜRKPATENT registration.

Arbitration can provide significant advantages in such disputes.

The parties may select arbitrators with experience in intellectual property, competition law, technology transfer and the relevant industry. Proceedings can be conducted confidentially, technical information can be protected through restricted-access protocols and the parties may avoid litigating connected disputes before courts in several countries.

WIPO identifies specialisation, flexibility and confidentiality as important advantages of alternative dispute resolution for intellectual property and technology disputes. Its Arbitration and Mediation Center administers mediation, arbitration, expedited arbitration and expert-determination procedures for domestic and cross-border disputes.

However, intellectual property arbitration has important legal limits.

A contractual tribunal derives authority from the parties’ consent. It may decide payment obligations, licence scope, contractual infringement, ownership arrangements and damages between the parties. It does not automatically possess public authority to cancel a trademark or patent registration, bind TÜRKPATENT or determine rights against persons that did not agree to arbitration.

This article explains the Turkish legal framework for trademark, patent and licensing arbitration, the distinction between contractual and registration-related remedies, common royalty and infringement claims, evidence, interim protection, damages and enforcement.

Turkish Legal Framework for Intellectual Property Arbitration

The principal legal sources include:

• Industrial Property Code No. 6769;
• International Arbitration Law No. 4686;
• Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098;
• Law No. 5718 on Private International Law and International Civil Procedure;
• Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102;
• Law No. 5846 on Intellectual and Artistic Works, where copyright is also relevant;
• Applicable competition and sector-specific legislation;
• The parties’ licence, franchise, technology-transfer or settlement agreements.

Industrial Property Code No. 6769 regulates trademarks, patents, utility models, designs, geographical indications and traditional product names. It covers applications, registrations, post-registration procedures and civil and criminal consequences of infringement.

Where the arbitration contains a qualifying foreign element and Turkey is selected as the legal seat, International Arbitration Law No. 4686 generally governs the proceedings.

The statute recognises party autonomy, written arbitration agreements, tribunal jurisdiction, interim protection, evidentiary procedures, awards and limited setting-aside proceedings. It excludes disputes concerning rights in rem over Turkish immovable property and matters that are not subject to the parties’ free disposition.

Domestic arbitrations without the required foreign element are principally governed by the arbitration provisions of the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure.

What Is Intellectual Property Arbitration?

Intellectual property arbitration is the resolution of an IP-related dispute by one or more arbitrators under a valid arbitration agreement.

The clause may appear in:

• A trademark licence;
• A patent licence;
• A technology-transfer agreement;
• A franchise agreement;
• A distribution agreement;
• A coexistence agreement;
• A research and development agreement;
• A settlement agreement;
• A manufacturing agreement;
• An assignment agreement;
• A joint venture or shareholders’ agreement.

Arbitration is consensual.

A trademark owner cannot compel an unrelated counterfeiter to arbitrate merely because the owner prefers arbitration. Similarly, a patent holder cannot commence arbitration against an alleged infringer that never accepted an arbitration agreement.

Arbitration is therefore especially effective for disputes arising from pre-existing commercial relationships.

Which IP Disputes Are Generally Suitable for Arbitration?

Private contractual disputes are ordinarily the strongest candidates for arbitration.

These may include:

• Unpaid royalties;
• Incorrect sales reporting;
• Underpayment of licence fees;
• Breach of exclusivity;
• Unauthorised sublicensing;
• Use outside the agreed territory;
• Use outside the licensed product category;
• Failure to satisfy minimum sales obligations;
• Failure to maintain quality standards;
• Breach of confidentiality;
• Ownership of contractually developed IP;
• Allocation of rights in improvements;
• Termination of a licence;
• Post-termination use;
• Indemnity for third-party infringement claims;
• Contractual damages.

The parties are generally free to dispose of these economic rights and to agree that an arbitral tribunal will determine them.

Which IP Matters Require Greater Caution?

Greater caution is required where the requested remedy affects the legal status of a registered right against the public.

Examples include:

• Invalidation of a registered trademark;
• Revocation of a trademark registration;
• Invalidation of a patent;
• Cancellation or amendment of a TÜRKPATENT record;
• Annulment of a TÜRKPATENT administrative decision;
• Criminal sanctions for counterfeiting;
• Orders binding third parties that did not consent to arbitration.

The Industrial Property Code assigns trademark-invalidation proceedings to the competent courts. TÜRKPATENT’s official trademark guidance confirms that invalidity is requested before the authorised court and that TÜRKPATENT is not named as a party to the invalidity action.

Patent invalidity is also determined by the relevant court under the statutory system. Official TÜRKPATENT guidance identifies lack of patentability, insufficient disclosure, added subject matter, lack of entitlement and excessive scope of protection among the grounds on which a court may invalidate a patent.

Trademark revocation follows a different route.

Article 26 of the Industrial Property Code became effective seven years after the Code’s publication, and the current administrative procedure permits interested persons to request revocation from TÜRKPATENT. The implementing regulation requires a separate request for each registration, identification of the statutory grounds and submission of the required fee and evidence.

The safer approach is therefore to distinguish between:

1. Inter partes contractual consequences, which may be decided by the tribunal; and
2. Erga omnes registry consequences, which remain within the authority of the competent court or TÜRKPATENT.

An arbitral tribunal may, for example, determine that a licensor breached a warranty that a trademark was valid and enforceable. It may award repayment of royalties or damages.

The tribunal should not ordinarily purport to delete the trademark from the Turkish register or issue an order binding TÜRKPATENT directly.

Can an Arbitrator Consider Trademark or Patent Validity?

Validity may arise as a defence even where the claimant seeks only contractual payment.

A licensee may argue:

• The patent was never valid;
• The trademark was registered in bad faith;
• The licensed right has been revoked;
• The licensor lacked ownership;
• Royalties are no longer payable because the protected right ceased to exist.

Whether and to what extent the tribunal may consider validity as a preliminary issue is sensitive.

A carefully structured tribunal may determine the contractual consequences of the parties’ arguments between themselves without claiming authority to remove the registration from the public register.

For example, it may decide that:

• A contractual warranty was breached;
• Royalty payments must be suspended;
• The licence may be terminated;
• A party must reimburse amounts paid;
• An indemnity obligation has arisen.

Any finding should be expressed as binding only between the arbitration parties unless and until the competent court or TÜRKPATENT changes the registered status.

This distinction reduces the risk that the award will be challenged for non-arbitrability, excess of jurisdiction or conflict with public policy.

Trademark Licensing under Turkish Law

A registered trademark or pending trademark application may be subject to licensing, assignment, inheritance, pledge, security, attachment and other legal transactions.

A trademark licence may cover all or only some of the goods and services for which the mark is registered.

Turkish trademark practice recognises:

• Exclusive licences;
• Non-exclusive licences.

Under an exclusive licence, the licensor cannot grant another person the same rights and, unless the agreement reserves the licensor’s own right of use, the licensor may also be prevented from using the mark within the licensed scope.

Under a non-exclusive licence, the licensor may continue using the trademark and may grant licences to other persons.

The agreement should not rely only on the words “exclusive” or “non-exclusive.”

It should define:

• Licensed goods and services;
• Territory;
• Distribution channels;
• Customer categories;
• Online sales;
• Export rights;
• Marketplace sales;
• Duration;
• Renewal;
• Sublicensing;
• Reserved rights.

Territorial Restrictions

A trademark owner may grant a licence for:

• Turkey;
• A group of provinces;
• A particular region;
• Türkiye and neighbouring markets;
• Online sales directed to specified countries;
• Duty-free or travel-retail channels.

Digital commerce makes territorial restrictions more difficult to apply.

A Turkish licensee may operate a website accessible worldwide. Products may be resold through international marketplaces. Social-media advertising may reach customers outside the licensed territory.

The agreement should determine whether territory is measured according to:

• Customer residence;
• Delivery address;
• Billing address;
• Website targeting;
• Distributor location;
• Place of sale;
• Place where the trademark is used.

A tribunal should not be required to create a territorial rule that the parties never defined.

Quality Control and Brand Standards

Trademark licensing is closely connected with quality and reputation.

A licensor may require compliance with:

• Manufacturing specifications;
• Approved materials;
• Packaging rules;
• Advertising standards;
• Store design;
• Customer-service requirements;
• Regulatory standards;
• Product testing;
• Approved suppliers.

The agreement should identify who conducts inspections and what happens when the licensee fails to comply.

Possible remedies include:

• Corrective-action plans;
• Suspension of production;
• Withdrawal of defective goods;
• Destruction or relabelling;
• Termination;
• Damages;
• Indemnification.

A minor packaging error should not automatically be treated in the same way as deliberate production of unsafe or counterfeit-quality goods. The clause should distinguish material from non-material breach.

Unauthorised Expansion of Trademark Licence Rights

The Industrial Property Code treats unauthorised expansion of rights granted under a trademark licence, or unauthorised transfer of those rights to third parties, as trademark infringement.

This may become relevant where the licensee:

• Uses the mark for unlicensed products;
• Expands into another territory;
• Permits an affiliate to use the mark;
• Appoints sub-distributors without approval;
• Transfers production to an unauthorised factory;
• Continues use after termination.

A dispute may involve both contractual breach and statutory infringement.

The arbitration clause should be broad enough to cover claims “arising out of or relating to the agreement, including infringement resulting from use outside the licensed scope or after termination.”

Royalty Disputes

Royalty disputes are among the most common IP arbitration claims.

Royalties may be calculated as:

• A percentage of gross sales;
• A percentage of net sales;
• A fixed amount per unit;
• A minimum annual royalty;
• A milestone payment;
• A lump-sum fee;
• A combination of fixed and variable amounts.

The agreement should define “net sales” carefully.

Permitted deductions may include:

• VAT and sales taxes;
• Actual returns;
• Approved discounts;
• Transportation;
• Customs duties;
• Bad debts;
• Rebates.

The parties should determine how transactions with affiliates are valued.

A licensee could reduce royalties artificially by selling goods to an affiliate at a low transfer price, while the affiliate resells at market value. The agreement may therefore use arm’s-length pricing or the price charged to the first independent customer.

Royalty Audits

The licensor should receive sufficient information to verify royalties.

The agreement may require:

• Quarterly sales reports;
• Product-level data;
• Customer records;
• Invoices;
• Tax records;
• Distributor statements;
• Independent accountant certification.

Audit provisions should regulate:

• Frequency;
• Advance notice;
• Auditor independence;
• Confidentiality;
• Record-retention period;
• Permitted sampling;
• Cost allocation;
• Consequences of underpayment.

A common mechanism requires the licensee to pay audit costs where the underpayment exceeds an agreed percentage.

The tribunal may need forensic-accounting evidence where sales records are incomplete, inconsistent or distributed among several affiliates.

Registration of Trademark Licences

Recording a licence in the TÜRKPATENT register is strategically important, particularly where the parties expect the arrangement to affect successors, purchasers, creditors or other third parties.

TÜRKPATENT’s official guidance permits the recording of trademark-related legal transactions and explains that licences may concern all or part of the registered goods or services.

The parties should determine who is responsible for:

• Preparing the registration documents;
• Paying the official fee;
• Obtaining a Turkish translation;
• Recording amendments;
• Removing the licence after termination.

An arbitral award ordering a party to cooperate with registration does not itself guarantee that TÜRKPATENT will alter the register. The formal statutory and administrative requirements must still be satisfied.

Licensee Standing against Third-Party Infringers

The Industrial Property Code gives an exclusive licensee substantial enforcement authority unless the agreement provides otherwise.

An exclusive licensee may generally bring the actions available to the right holder in its own name.

A non-exclusive licensee must ordinarily request the right holder to commence the necessary action. If the right holder refuses or fails to act within three months, the non-exclusive licensee may bring an action in its own name to the extent required by its interests, provided that the contractual right to sue has not been restricted expressly.

Where a serious risk of loss exists, the licensee may request an interim injunction before the three-month period expires.

These statutory rules concern proceedings against third-party infringers. They do not create arbitral jurisdiction over a third party that never agreed to arbitration.

Franchise and Distribution Disputes

Trademark licensing frequently forms part of a broader franchise or distribution arrangement.

The dispute may concern:

• Use of the brand;
• Purchase obligations;
• Territory;
• Online sales;
• Store standards;
• Advertising contributions;
• Know-how;
• Customer data;
• Post-termination de-branding;
• Non-compete obligations.

The arbitration clause should cover the entire commercial relationship rather than only the trademark licence schedule.

Where separate franchise, supply and licence agreements are used, their dispute-resolution clauses should be compatible. Otherwise, one tribunal may hear the trademark claim while a court or another tribunal hears the distribution dispute.

Coexistence Agreements

Trademark coexistence agreements regulate the simultaneous use or registration of similar marks.

They may address:

• Product classes;
• Territories;
• Logos;
• Colours;
• Trade dress;
• Digital advertising;
• Search-engine keywords;
• Domain names;
• Future applications;
• Opposition procedures.

A dispute may arise when one party:

• Files in an unauthorised class;
• Changes the visual presentation;
• Expands into the other party’s market;
• Opposes an application contrary to the agreement;
• Uses confusing online advertising.

The tribunal may enforce contractual voting, consent or withdrawal obligations between the parties. Formal withdrawal or registration action must still be completed through TÜRKPATENT.

Patent Licensing under Turkish Law

A patent or patent application may be licensed for use throughout Turkey or within a defined part of the country.

TÜRKPATENT’s official patent guidance explains that the parties may request recording and publication of the licence through EPATS. The required material includes the patent or application number, licence period, type of licence, any stated price and a certified Turkish translation where the agreement is in another language.

A patent licence should define:

• Patents and applications covered;
• Patent families;
• Continuations or divisional applications;
• Territory;
• Field of use;
• Products;
• Manufacturing rights;
• Sale and import rights;
• Sublicensing;
• Improvements;
• Know-how;
• Technical assistance;
• Patent prosecution;
• Maintenance fees;
• Enforcement.

Field-of-Use Restrictions

A patent may have applications in several industries.

For example, one invention may be used in:

• Medical devices;
• Automotive systems;
• Telecommunications;
• Defence;
• Consumer electronics.

The licensor may grant separate licences for different fields.

The agreement should define the field by reference to objective products, customers, applications or technical functions.

Broad expressions such as “healthcare use” may create disputes about wellness products, laboratory use, veterinary applications or research tools.

Patent Scope and Claim Construction

Patent disputes frequently require technical interpretation of the patent claims.

The tribunal may need to determine:

• Meaning of claim terms;
• Essential technical features;
• Whether a product includes every required element;
• Whether a process uses the patented steps;
• Whether an equivalent element falls within the protected scope;
• Whether the licensee’s new product is covered by the licence.

The Industrial Property Code treats unauthorised manufacturing, sale, use, importation and commercial possession of patented products, as well as unauthorised use of patented processes and dealing in directly obtained products, as conduct within the patent holder’s exclusive sphere.

Patent arbitration commonly requires:

• Claim charts;
• Product samples;
• Technical drawings;
• Source code;
• Laboratory testing;
• Reverse engineering;
• Expert reports.

The tribunal should distinguish legal claim interpretation from technical expert evidence.

Improvements and Grant-Back Rights

Licence agreements should address improvements developed during the relationship.

Possible structures include:

• Improvements belong to the developer;
• Improvements belong to the original licensor;
• Improvements are jointly owned;
• The other party receives a non-exclusive licence;
• The other party receives an exclusive licence in a specified field;
• Improvements are licensed through a separate royalty.

The agreement should define “improvement.”

A change that merely optimises production may be different from a separately patentable invention.

Grant-back clauses also require competition-law review where they prevent the licensee from exploiting independently developed technology or require assignment of all future innovations.

Know-How and Trade Secrets

Patent licences often include know-how that is not disclosed in the patent document.

Know-how may include:

• Manufacturing tolerances;
• Formulations;
• Testing procedures;
• Supplier information;
• Source code;
• Negative research results;
• Technical drawings;
• Calibration data.

The agreement should identify:

• What information is confidential;
• How it is delivered;
• Who may access it;
• Permitted use;
• Return or destruction;
• Duration of confidentiality;
• Exceptions for public or independently developed information.

Patent expiry does not necessarily terminate a valid confidentiality obligation concerning separate trade secrets. The agreement should distinguish information disclosed publicly through the patent from information that remains confidential.

Patent Prosecution and Maintenance

The licence should allocate responsibility for:

• Filing applications;
• Responding to examination reports;
• Paying annual fees;
• Foreign filings;
• Opposition or post-grant proceedings;
• Abandonment decisions;
• Patent-term extensions where available;
• Communication with TÜRKPATENT.

A licensee making substantial investment may request consultation or step-in rights before the licensor abandons an important patent.

TÜRKPATENT’s official guidance states that patent protection generally lasts 20 years from the application date, provided that the statutory requirements and annual-fee obligations are satisfied.

Patent Invalidity and Licence Disputes

A licensee may discover prior art or another defect affecting the patent.

Official TÜRKPATENT guidance identifies grounds including:

• Failure to satisfy patentability requirements;
• Insufficient disclosure;
• Subject matter extending beyond the original application;
• Lack of entitlement;
• Protection exceeding the permitted scope.

Invalidity is decided by the competent court under the statutory framework.

The licence should state what happens if the patent is:

• Rejected;
• Narrowed;
• Invalidated;
• Revoked;
• Abandoned;
• Allowed to lapse.

Possible consequences include:

• Automatic termination;
• Royalty reduction;
• Conversion to a know-how licence;
• Refund of prepaid royalties;
• No retroactive refund;
• Continued confidentiality duties.

Leaving these issues undefined can result in a major arbitration after the patent loses protection.

Patent-Use Obligations and Compulsory Licensing

Turkish patent law includes a use requirement.

TÜRKPATENT’s guidance states that use should generally occur within the later of three years from publication of the patent-grant decision or four years from the patent-application date. Market conditions and technical, economic or legal factors outside the patent holder’s control may be considered.

Where use has not begun, serious and genuine preparations have not been made or use does not meet national-market needs, a compulsory licence may be requested through the statutory mechanism.

A private tribunal should not ordinarily attempt to replace the competent statutory authority by granting a compulsory licence against a non-consenting patent holder.

The tribunal may, however, decide contractual claims concerning:

• A promise to grant a licence;
• Negotiation obligations;
• Breach of a settlement agreement;
• Allocation of costs;
• Contractual consequences of non-use.

Employee and Research Inventions

Patent disputes may also concern who is entitled to an invention developed by:

• An employee;
• A university researcher;
• A contractor;
• A joint research team;
• A publicly funded project.

The Industrial Property Code contains specific rules concerning employee inventions, higher-education inventions and publicly supported projects.

An R&D agreement should regulate:

• Background intellectual property;
• Project results;
• Inventorship;
• Ownership;
• Patent filing;
• Employee compensation;
• Publication;
• Academic use;
• Commercialisation;
• Revenue sharing.

An arbitral tribunal may determine the contractual allocation between signatories. Formal transfer and registration steps must still be completed under the applicable IP legislation.

IP Infringement Claims in Arbitration

An infringement claim may be arbitrated where the alleged infringer is bound by the arbitration agreement.

This commonly occurs where a former licensee continues using the IP after termination or uses it outside the contractual scope.

Trademark infringement may include unauthorised use of the registered mark, imitation creating confusion and unauthorised expansion or transfer of licensed rights.

Patent infringement may include unauthorised production, sale, use, importation or commercial possession of the patented product and unauthorised use of a patented process.

The claimant should identify both:

• The contractual provision breached; and
• The statutory IP right allegedly infringed.

Damages in IP Arbitration

Industrial Property Code No. 6769 provides that infringement damages include actual loss and lost profit.

The right holder may select one of three methods for calculating lost profit:

1. The probable income the right holder would have earned without the infringer’s competition;
2. The infringer’s net profit;
3. The licence fee the infringer would have paid for lawful use.

The economic importance of the right, the number, duration and type of existing licences and the nature and scale of infringement may also be considered.

These methods may guide an arbitral tribunal applying Turkish law.

A claimant should nevertheless avoid presenting three overlapping calculations as cumulative damages.

The tribunal should determine the method legally selected and prevent double recovery.

Hypothetical Royalty Method

The hypothetical royalty method may be particularly useful where:

• The claimant cannot prove lost sales;
• The parties previously negotiated a licence;
• The infringer operated in a different market;
• The patent owner did not practise the invention;
• Reliable comparable licences exist.

Relevant factors may include:

• Existing royalty rates;
• Exclusivity;
• Territory;
• Product profitability;
• Remaining protection period;
• Minimum guarantees;
• Technology contribution;
• Comparable transactions.

A royalty from a worldwide exclusive licence cannot be applied automatically to a narrow, non-exclusive Turkish use.

Actual Loss and Additional Expenses

Actual loss may include:

• Unpaid royalties;
• Investigation costs;
• Product-recall expenses;
• Rebranding costs;
• Corrective advertising;
• Technical remediation;
• Destruction or relabelling costs;
• Loss caused by termination of customer contracts.

The claimant must establish causation and reasonable mitigation.

The existence of infringement does not prove every amount claimed.

Evidence in Trademark Arbitration

Relevant trademark evidence may include:

• Licence agreements;
• TÜRKPATENT registrations;
• Brand guidelines;
• Packaging;
• Product photographs;
• Advertising materials;
• Sales records;
• Distributor agreements;
• Marketplace listings;
• Social-media content;
• Consumer surveys;
• Domain-name records;
• Customs evidence;
• Royalty statements.

The tribunal may need to distinguish authorised parallel sales from unauthorised production or use outside the licence.

Evidence in Patent Arbitration

Patent evidence may include:

• Patent specification and claims;
• Prosecution history;
• Prior-art documents;
• Claim charts;
• Technical drawings;
• Product samples;
• Manufacturing records;
• Laboratory tests;
• Source code;
• Expert reports;
• Reverse-engineering findings;
• Royalty records.

Where source code or manufacturing know-how is highly confidential, the tribunal may limit access to external counsel and independent experts.

Confidentiality and Protective Measures

IP disputes may reveal:

• Unpublished inventions;
• Source code;
• Formulations;
• Research failures;
• Customer lists;
• Product plans;
• Pricing;
• Licence rates;
• Patent strategies.

A procedural confidentiality order may provide for:

• Public, confidential and highly confidential categories;
• Counsel-only access;
• Expert undertakings;
• Secure electronic data rooms;
• Restrictions on copying;
• Closed hearings;
• Return or destruction of documents;
• Redaction of the award.

WIPO describes confidentiality and specialist procedure as important reasons why parties select arbitration for intellectual property disputes.

Expert Determination

Not every technical or royalty disagreement requires full arbitration.

The parties may refer a narrowly defined matter to an independent expert, such as:

• Calculation of royalties;
• Valuation of an IP portfolio;
• Whether a product satisfies a technical specification;
• Calculation of net sales;
• Determination of a milestone payment.

WIPO identifies expert determination as a procedure through which parties submit technical questions, IP valuation or royalty-rate issues to one or more experts.

The agreement should distinguish expert determination from arbitration.

Legal issues concerning infringement, termination, fraud, validity, damages and procedural fairness should ordinarily remain within the tribunal’s authority unless the parties expressly provide otherwise.

Interim Measures

Urgent protection may be necessary to:

• Stop continued trademark use;
• Prevent disclosure of know-how;
• Preserve allegedly infringing products;
• Protect source code;
• Prevent transfer of registered rights;
• Secure evidence;
• Require security for damages.

The Industrial Property Code permits persons entitled to bring infringement proceedings to request interim measures where they prove that infringement is occurring or that serious and effective preparations are being made.

Available measures may include preventing or stopping infringing conduct, seizing and preserving infringing products and requiring security.

International Arbitration Law No. 4686 also preserves the parties’ right to apply to Turkish courts for interim injunctions or attachment without waiving arbitration.

An arbitral tribunal may grant interim protection between the parties, but measures requiring compulsory state enforcement or binding third parties may require court assistance.

Registration of Interim Measures

Where the dispute concerns ownership, transfer or abandonment of a registered right, the applicant should consider whether the court measure should be recorded at TÜRKPATENT.

An arbitral order may bind the signatories contractually but may not prevent a third party from acquiring rights in good faith unless the relevant public-record and interim-protection procedures are followed.

Arbitration counsel should therefore coordinate with trademark or patent counsel responsible for TÜRKPATENT procedures.

ISTAC Arbitration for IP Disputes

The parties may select the Istanbul Arbitration Centre to administer trademark, patent and licence disputes.

ISTAC’s model clause provides that disputes arising out of or connected with a contract shall be finally settled under the ISTAC Arbitration Rules. ISTAC recommends adapting the clause by specifying the seat, language, number of arbitrators and law governing the merits.

ISTAC may be suitable where:

• Turkey is the principal market;
• TÜRKPATENT rights are involved;
• Turkish court interim relief may be required;
• The parties need English-language proceedings;
• The agreement is part of a broader Turkish transaction;
• The award may need to be enforced against assets in Turkey.

WIPO arbitration may also be considered where the dispute is highly international or the parties prefer specialised IP-focused institutional administration.

Drafting an IP Arbitration Clause

An IP arbitration clause should identify:

• Arbitration institution;
• Seat;
• Language;
• Number of arbitrators;
• Governing law;
• Law governing the arbitration agreement;
• Technical qualifications;
• Confidentiality;
• Source-code or trade-secret access;
• Interim court relief;
• Expert determination;
• Related contracts;
• Consolidation;
• Registry-related carve-outs.

The clause should cover:

• Ownership;
• Licensing;
• Royalties;
• Audit;
• Quality control;
• Sublicensing;
• Improvements;
• Infringement by a contractual party;
• Termination;
• Post-termination use;
• Indemnity;
• Damages.

Sample Intellectual Property Arbitration Clause

“Any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement, including its formation, existence, validity, interpretation, performance, breach, termination or enforcement, shall be finally resolved by arbitration administered by the Istanbul Arbitration Centre in accordance with the ISTAC Arbitration Rules.

The seat of arbitration shall be Istanbul, Türkiye. The tribunal shall consist of three arbitrators. The language of arbitration shall be English. This Agreement and the arbitration agreement contained in this clause shall be governed by Turkish law.

The tribunal shall have jurisdiction over disputes concerning ownership as between the parties, licence scope, exclusivity, sublicensing, royalties, sales reporting, audits, quality control, field of use, territory, improvements, confidentiality, contractual infringement, post-termination use, indemnity and damages.

The tribunal may consider allegations concerning the validity, enforceability or scope of an intellectual property right solely to the extent necessary to determine contractual rights and obligations between the parties. The tribunal shall not purport to cancel, invalidate, revoke or amend a public registration with effect against TÜRKPATENT or persons that have not consented to arbitration.

Matters requiring cancellation, invalidation, revocation, amendment or registration of an industrial property right with effect against third parties shall remain subject to the authority of the competent court or the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office.

The tribunal may adopt confidentiality and cybersecurity measures, restrict access to technical materials and appoint independent experts. Nothing in this clause prevents a party from applying to an emergency arbitrator or competent court for interim or conservatory relief.”

Setting Aside Turkish-Seated IP Awards

A Turkish-seated international award may be challenged only on the limited grounds stated in International Arbitration Law No. 4686.

Potential grounds include:

• Invalidity of the arbitration agreement;
• Irregular tribunal constitution;
• Excess of jurisdiction;
• Material procedural violations;
• Denial of equal treatment;
• Non-arbitrability;
• Conflict with Turkish public policy.

IP awards should therefore be drafted carefully.

An award ordering payment of unpaid patent royalties presents a different enforcement profile from an award purporting to erase a trademark from the TÜRKPATENT register.

Separating contractual relief from public-registration remedies reduces setting-aside and enforcement risk.

Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign IP Awards

A foreign trademark, patent or licence award may be recognised and enforced in Turkey under the New York Convention and the applicable provisions of Law No. 5718.

The New York Convention provides common standards for recognising arbitration agreements and enforcing foreign and non-domestic awards.

Under Law No. 5718, foreign arbitral awards that are final, executable or binding may be presented for enforcement, subject to limited statutory refusal grounds.

An enforcement court may examine whether:

• A valid arbitration agreement existed;
• The respondent received proper notice;
• The tribunal remained within its jurisdiction;
• The procedure respected the parties’ agreement;
• The dispute was arbitrable;
• Enforcement would conflict with public policy.

An award concerning payment, licence termination or damages between the signatories is generally easier to enforce than an award attempting to bind the registry or unrelated third parties.

Practical Checklist for Trademark Licences

Before signing a trademark licence, the parties should confirm:

• Correct registration numbers;
• Licensed goods and services;
• Territory;
• Distribution channels;
• Online sales;
• Exclusivity;
• Licensor’s reserved use;
• Sublicensing;
• Brand standards;
• Inspection rights;
• Royalties;
• Audit procedure;
• Minimum sales;
• Renewal;
• Termination;
• Sell-off period;
• Post-termination de-branding;
• TÜRKPATENT registration;
• Third-party infringement procedure;
• Arbitration clause.

Practical Checklist for Patent Licences

A patent licence should address:

• Patent and application numbers;
• Patent families;
• Territory;
• Field of use;
• Exclusivity;
• Manufacturing and sale rights;
• Import and export;
• Sublicensing;
• Royalties;
• Milestones;
• Audit;
• Improvements;
• Grant-back rights;
• Know-how;
• Technical support;
• Prosecution;
• Annual fees;
• Enforcement;
• Invalidity;
• Patent lapse;
• Compulsory licensing;
• Confidentiality;
• Arbitration.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can trademark disputes be arbitrated in Turkey?

Yes. Contractual disputes concerning trademark licensing, royalties, exclusivity, quality control and post-termination use are generally suitable for arbitration where a valid arbitration agreement exists.

Can an arbitrator cancel a Turkish trademark?

An arbitral tribunal should not ordinarily purport to remove a trademark from the TÜRKPATENT register with effect against the public. Trademark invalidity is determined through the competent court, while statutory revocation requests are now handled by TÜRKPATENT.

What is the difference between trademark invalidity and revocation?

Invalidity generally concerns defects existing in the registration, such as absolute or relative refusal grounds. Revocation concerns later circumstances such as non-use, generic character, misleading use or misuse of collective or guarantee marks under the statutory grounds.

Can patent disputes be arbitrated?

Yes. Patent licence, royalty, field-of-use, sublicensing, improvement, confidentiality and contractual infringement disputes may be arbitrated where the parties consent.

Can an arbitrator invalidate a Turkish patent?

The statutory invalidation of a Turkish patent is determined by the competent court. A tribunal may need to consider validity arguments only for the limited purpose of determining contractual consequences between the parties.

Can a trademark licence cover only some products?

Yes. A licence may cover all or part of the goods or services included in the trademark registration.

What is an exclusive trademark licence?

Under an exclusive licence, the licensor may not grant the same rights to another person and, unless its own use is reserved expressly, may also be restricted from using the trademark within the licensed scope.

Can a licensee sue a third-party infringer?

An exclusive licensee generally has independent standing unless the agreement provides otherwise. A non-exclusive licensee ordinarily follows the statutory notice procedure before bringing its own action.

Should a trademark or patent licence be recorded at TÜRKPATENT?

Recording is strongly advisable where the parties want the licence reflected in the public register or expect it to affect successors and third parties. TÜRKPATENT provides EPATS procedures for recording trademark and patent licences.

Can royalties continue after a patent is invalidated?

The answer depends on the licence wording, governing law, timing of invalidity and agreed allocation of risk. The contract should regulate refund, termination and continuing know-how obligations expressly.

How are IP infringement damages calculated?

Under the Industrial Property Code, loss includes actual loss and lost profit. Lost profit may be calculated through probable income, the infringer’s net profit or a hypothetical lawful licence fee.

Can a tribunal stop continued trademark or patent use?

A tribunal may grant interim relief between consenting parties. Turkish court assistance may be required where compulsory enforcement, seizure, registry action or obligations against third parties are necessary.

Can confidential source code or formulas be protected in arbitration?

Yes. The tribunal may use restricted-access orders, expert-only inspection, secure data rooms, closed hearings and confidentiality undertakings.

Can ISTAC administer IP disputes?

Yes. Parties may refer contractual trademark, patent and licensing disputes to ISTAC through an appropriately drafted arbitration agreement.

Can WIPO administer an IP arbitration involving a Turkish party?

Yes. WIPO’s Arbitration and Mediation Center administers mediation, arbitration, expedited arbitration and expert determination for domestic and international IP and technology disputes where the parties agree to its procedures.

Can a foreign IP award be enforced in Turkey?

Yes, subject to the New York Convention, Law No. 5718 and the limited grounds for refusing enforcement.

Conclusion

Intellectual property arbitration in Turkey provides an effective forum for trademark, patent and licensing disputes arising from commercial relationships.

Its principal strengths are specialisation, confidentiality, procedural flexibility and international enforceability.

The parties may appoint arbitrators who understand the relevant technology, industry and intellectual property framework. Sensitive source code, formulations, research records, pricing and royalty data may be protected through tailored confidentiality procedures.

Arbitration is particularly suitable for private contractual claims.

These include disputes concerning royalties, exclusivity, sublicensing, quality control, field of use, improvements, confidential information, termination and unauthorised post-termination use.

However, the distinction between contractual rights and public registration must remain clear.

An arbitrator may order a licensee to stop using a mark, pay royalties, return confidential information or compensate the licensor. The tribunal may decide ownership or validity-related questions between the signatories to the extent necessary for the contract.

It should not ordinarily claim authority to cancel a trademark, invalidate a patent, amend the TÜRKPATENT register or bind third parties that never consented to arbitration.

Trademark and patent licences should be drafted with this distinction in mind.

The agreement should define every economically important element, including territory, products, field of use, exclusivity, sublicensing, royalties, audits, improvements, enforcement and post-termination obligations.

Validity and expiry provisions deserve particular attention.

The contract should explain what happens where an application is rejected, a registration is invalidated, a patent lapses or a trademark is revoked. Failure to address these events may create a major dispute over continuing royalties and repayment.

Recording licences at TÜRKPATENT may also be important, especially where the parties expect the arrangement to affect purchasers, successors, creditors or other third parties.

Evidence preservation should begin immediately after a dispute becomes foreseeable.

Royalty records, licence reports, source code, technical drawings, marketing materials, sales data and correspondence may determine the outcome. Where technical evidence is highly confidential, the tribunal should create an expert-only or counsel-only review process.

The arbitration clause should be coordinated with all related agreements.

A trademark licence, distribution agreement, technology-transfer agreement and manufacturing contract should not contain inconsistent institutions, seats or tribunal structures.

A carefully drafted arbitration clause should preserve court access for urgent interim measures and reserve registration, invalidity and revocation matters for the competent public authority where necessary.

When these principles are followed, arbitration can resolve complex IP disputes efficiently without compromising the integrity of the Turkish industrial property registration system.

Legal Disclaimer: This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Intellectual property disputes depend on the registered right, contractual wording, parties, arbitral seat, governing law, TÜRKPATENT record, requested remedies and intended enforcement jurisdiction. Case-specific Turkish intellectual property and arbitration advice should be obtained before drafting a licence, commencing arbitration or seeking interim relief.