Use of Competitors’ Trademarks in Online Advertising in Turkey

Introduction

Online advertising allows businesses to reach consumers at the exact moment they search for a product, service, brand or commercial solution. Through Google Ads, search engine marketing, marketplace ads, social media ads and keyword-based targeting, advertisers can appear before consumers who are actively comparing alternatives. This makes online advertising one of the most powerful tools in the Turkish digital market.

However, the use of competitors’ trademarks in online advertising in Turkey creates significant legal risk. A business may bid on a competitor’s brand name as a keyword, use a rival’s trademark in a Google Ads headline, include a competitor’s mark in a display URL, refer to a well-known brand in marketplace ads, or use a third party’s trademark to attract consumers looking for that brand. Such practices may trigger trademark infringement claims, unfair competition actions, misleading advertising sanctions and Advertising Board investigations.

The issue is particularly important because online advertising systems often work automatically. Advertising platforms may suggest keywords, generate dynamic headlines, insert search terms into ad titles or create responsive ad combinations. Nevertheless, Turkish enforcement practice shows that advertisers may still be held responsible for the keywords, ad text and campaign settings used in search engine advertisements. In a 2024 Advertising Board decision concerning Google search results for “netflix,” the Board evaluated sponsored advertisements containing Netflix-related wording and held that the relevant advertisements were misleading and capable of causing unfair competition.

This article explains how Turkish law approaches the use of competitors’ trademarks in online advertising, including trademark infringement, unfair competition, misleading search ads, Google Ads keyword use, sponsored rankings, official-status claims, comparative advertising, dynamic keyword insertion, landing page confusion, Advertising Board sanctions and practical compliance recommendations for advertisers.

Why Competitor Trademark Use Matters in Online Advertising

A trademark is not merely a word or logo. It is a commercial sign that allows consumers to identify the source of goods or services. When a consumer searches for a brand name online, the consumer may be looking for that brand’s official website, authorized seller, original product, customer service, repair service, clinic, hotel, software platform or subscription service.

If a competitor uses that trademark to attract the consumer, confusion may arise. The consumer may believe that the advertisement belongs to the trademark owner, an authorized distributor, an official service provider or a business economically connected with the brand. Even if the consumer later realizes that the advertiser is different, the initial confusion may already have influenced the click decision.

This is why competitor trademark use in online advertising is legally sensitive. The legal problem is not only whether the advertiser makes a sale. The problem begins when the advertiser captures consumer attention by relying on another business’s trademark reputation in a misleading or unfair way.

The risk is especially high where the advertisement uses expressions such as “official,” “authorized,” “Turkey distributor,” “original product,” “brand service,” “best alternative,” or “same product” without legal basis. Such statements may create the impression of affiliation or authorization.

Legal Framework in Turkey

The use of competitors’ trademarks in online advertising may be assessed under several legal regimes.

First, trademark law applies. The main legislation is Law No. 6769 on Industrial Property. The Turkish Patent and Trademark Office lists the 6769 Industrial Property Law among the core national legislation governing industrial property rights, including trademarks. Under Law No. 6769, trademark protection is obtained through registration, and rights arising from registration belong exclusively to the trademark owner. The law gives the trademark owner the right to prevent unauthorized use of identical or confusingly similar signs in circumstances covered by trademark protection.

Second, unfair competition law may apply. Under the Turkish Commercial Code, unfair competition rules aim to protect honest and undistorted competition. Online advertising that misleads consumers, creates confusion, exploits a competitor’s reputation or diverts customers through deceptive means may constitute unfair competition.

Third, consumer protection and advertising law applies. Law No. 6502 on the Protection of Consumers and the Regulation on Commercial Advertising and Unfair Commercial Practices prohibit misleading advertisements and unfair commercial practices. The Advertising Board supervises advertisements directed at consumers and may impose suspension, correction, administrative fines and, in online cases, access blocking.

Fourth, data protection and targeted advertising rules may apply if competitor trademark advertising is combined with behavioral targeting, remarketing, customer lists or profiling. The 2026 amendments to Turkish advertising rules introduced transparency obligations for targeted advertising and prohibited profiling-based targeted advertising directed at children.

Therefore, an online advertisement using a competitor’s mark should not be reviewed only from a trademark perspective. It should also be reviewed from consumer protection, unfair competition and digital advertising compliance perspectives.

Is It Always Illegal to Use a Competitor’s Trademark as a Keyword?

The answer is not always simple. Turkish law does not contain a single rule stating that every hidden keyword use of a competitor’s trademark is automatically unlawful in all circumstances. The assessment depends on the total effect of the campaign.

However, the legal risk increases significantly where the competitor’s trademark appears in the visible ad text, title, URL, landing page, product page or callout extension. The risk also increases where the advertisement suggests authorization, official status, distributorship, affiliation or equivalence.

For example, a repair company bidding on a device brand may be in a legally risky position if its ad says “Brand X Official Service” while the company is not authorized. A clinic bidding on another clinic’s name may create unfair competition if the ad directs consumers searching for that clinic to its own page. A marketplace seller using a famous brand name to attract consumers to unrelated products may mislead consumers and exploit brand reputation.

The practical rule is this: the advertiser should not use the competitor’s trademark in a way that causes consumer confusion or unfairly benefits from the competitor’s reputation. The more the advertisement resembles an official or authorized result, the higher the risk.

Google Ads and Sponsored Search Results

Google Ads and similar search engine advertising systems are the most common context for competitor trademark disputes. Search advertisements are often shown above organic results and may be labeled as “sponsored” or “advertisement.” However, the presence of a sponsored label does not automatically cure misleading content.

In the Advertising Board’s 343rd meeting, a sponsored Google result displayed the title “Netflix – Şimdi İzlemeye Başla” and directed users to GAİN’s website. The Board found that consumers searching for “netflix” were directed to another website through wording that created a misleading impression, and it ordered suspension of the advertisement.

In another decision from the same meeting, the Board examined a sponsored Google ad for Amazon.com.tr triggered by “netflix.” The ad title included “Netflix – Online alışveriş – Aradığın her şey.” The Board emphasized that even if the wording emerged due to the sale of Netflix-branded products or platform mechanisms, the choice of keywords and headlines in Google’s system was within the advertiser’s responsibility. The Board considered the advertisement misleading.

These decisions are important because they show that search engine advertising is not exempt from Turkish advertising law. A sponsored label does not allow an advertiser to use a competitor’s mark in a misleading way. The advertiser must control keywords, ad titles, automated suggestions and landing pages.

False Official Status and Distributor Claims

One of the highest-risk practices is using a competitor’s trademark together with expressions suggesting official status. Words such as “official,” “authorized,” “distributor,” “Turkey distributor,” “official service,” “certified seller,” “authorized clinic” or “original service” can strongly influence consumers.

The Advertising Board’s “Kobra” decision is a clear example. In that case, a Google search for “Kobra Evrak İmha ve Harddisk İmha Makineleri” showed a sponsored result using the expression “Türkiye Distribütörü.” The Board found that the advertiser was not the distributor of Kobra-branded products, that the search advertisement and search terms manipulated consumer searches, and that the advertiser benefited from trust in the relevant firm. The Board imposed an administrative fine and ordered suspension of the advertisement.

This decision is highly relevant for online advertisers in Turkey. If a business is not an authorized distributor, dealer, seller or service provider, it should not use wording that creates such an impression. Even if the business sells compatible, alternative or second-hand products, the advertisement must make its independent status clear.

Trademark Infringement Risk

Trademark infringement risk arises when a competitor’s registered mark is used without authorization in a way that falls within the trademark owner’s exclusive rights. Under Turkish trademark law, the trademark owner may prevent unauthorized use of identical or confusingly similar signs for goods or services within the scope of protection.

In online advertising, infringement risk may arise through:

Use of the competitor’s trademark in the ad headline.

Use of the trademark in ad descriptions.

Use of the trademark in display URLs.

Use of the trademark in landing page titles.

Use of the trademark in meta tags or structured ad content.

Use of the trademark in marketplace sponsored listings.

Use of the trademark in social media ad copy.

Use of the trademark in dynamic keyword insertion.

Use of confusing domain names such as “brandx-service.com” or “brandx-turkey.com.”

The strongest infringement risk generally exists where consumers may believe there is an economic connection between the advertiser and the trademark owner. This may include official service claims, authorized seller claims, imitation websites, counterfeit goods, look-alike landing pages or use of the trademark in a way that captures the brand’s goodwill.

Not every mention of a competitor’s mark is necessarily infringement. For example, certain lawful comparative uses may be possible if the use is truthful, necessary, proportionate and not misleading. However, the safest approach is to avoid competitor trademarks unless there is a clear legal basis and the use is carefully reviewed.

Unfair Competition Risk

Even where trademark infringement is debated, unfair competition may still arise. Unfair competition focuses on honesty in commercial behavior and the protection of undistorted competition. A search advertisement may be unfair if it misleads consumers, creates confusion, exploits a competitor’s reputation or diverts consumer traffic through deceptive methods.

For example, a business may avoid using the competitor’s mark on the landing page but still bid on the competitor’s mark and write ad copy that creates confusion. The consumer may click the ad believing it is related to the competitor. This may be considered unfair if the advertising strategy relies on consumer confusion.

Unfair competition risk is especially strong where the advertiser makes false statements about official status, authorization, price superiority, product equivalence or competitor quality. A statement such as “Brand X official alternative” may be risky if it suggests affiliation. A statement such as “better than Brand X” may be risky if the comparison is not objective and substantiated. A statement such as “Brand X service” may be risky if the advertiser is not authorized and does not clearly state that it is an independent service provider.

Misleading Advertising and Consumer Protection

Consumer protection law is central to online advertising disputes. The key question is whether the advertisement misleads or is likely to mislead the average consumer.

The Advertising Board’s search advertising decisions show that competitor trademark use may be evaluated as misleading advertising even where the dispute also has trademark or unfair competition aspects. In the Netflix-related decisions, the Board examined sponsored Google search results under advertising law and concluded that the advertisements were misleading or capable of causing unfair competition.

Misleading advertising may occur where:

The ad suggests that the advertiser is the trademark owner.

The ad suggests official authorization that does not exist.

The ad uses a competitor’s mark to direct users to unrelated products.

The landing page resembles the competitor’s website.

The ad omits the advertiser’s independent status.

The ad uses a competitor’s reputation to sell alternative goods.

The ad creates initial confusion even if clarified later.

The consumer’s click decision matters. If the consumer clicks because they believe the ad relates to the competitor’s mark, the advertisement may already have distorted consumer behavior.

Dynamic Keyword Insertion and Automated Ad Systems

Modern search advertising platforms use automation. Dynamic keyword insertion can automatically insert the user’s search term into the advertisement headline. Responsive search ads may combine different headlines and descriptions. AI-supported tools may generate ad copy based on website content or keyword groups.

These tools create legal risk when competitor trademarks are involved. An advertiser may not manually write a competitor’s mark into the ad, but the system may insert it automatically. The advertiser may approve a set of headlines that become misleading when combined. The system may generate wording suggesting official status or brand affiliation.

The Advertising Board’s Amazon decision is important because the Board did not accept platform mechanics as a full excuse. It considered keyword selection and headline entry within the advertiser’s responsibility.

Advertisers should therefore:

Disable dynamic insertion for competitor keywords.

Use negative keywords for competitor marks where necessary.

Review all responsive ad combinations.

Avoid automated use of brand names without authorization.

Monitor live search results.

Keep records of campaign settings.

Automation improves performance but does not remove legal responsibility.

Use of Competitor Trademarks in Display URLs and Domain Names

Domain names and display URLs can also create confusion. An online advertisement may not mention the competitor’s mark in the headline but may include it in the display URL or landing page address. This may mislead consumers into believing that the advertiser is connected with the trademark owner.

Risky domain examples include:

brandx-servis.com

brandx-yetkili-servis.com

brandx-turkiye.net

brandx-destek.com

brandx-klinik.com

brandx-original.com

Such domains may create trademark infringement and unfair competition risk if used without authorization. They may also mislead consumers under advertising law.

Even if a website includes a disclaimer stating “we are not affiliated with Brand X,” the disclaimer may not be enough if the domain, headline and page design create a dominant impression of affiliation. The overall impression is decisive.

Comparative Advertising and Competitor Marks

Comparative advertising may be lawful in Turkey if it is objective, verifiable, fair and not misleading. However, using a competitor’s trademark in comparative advertising requires careful review.

A comparison should not denigrate competitors, exploit their reputation unfairly or create confusion. It should compare goods or services that meet the same need or serve the same purpose. The comparison should be based on material, relevant, verifiable and typical characteristics.

For example, a search ad saying “30% cheaper than Brand X” may require strong evidence showing price comparison methodology, date, product equivalence and market scope. A claim such as “better than Brand X” is usually risky because it is broad and often subjective. A claim such as “Brand X alternative” may be risky if consumers believe the advertiser is affiliated with Brand X.

Comparative advertising should be drafted narrowly. The advertiser should use only the minimum competitor reference necessary to make a truthful comparison. Any use of a competitor mark should be proportionate, non-confusing and supported by evidence.

Marketplace Advertising and Competitor Marks

Competitor trademark use does not occur only in Google Ads. Online marketplaces also create risk. Sellers may use competitor brand names in product titles, sponsored listings, product tags, search keywords or descriptions.

For example, a seller may list a product as “compatible with Brand X” or “Brand X style.” Compatibility statements may be lawful in some circumstances if they are necessary, truthful and not misleading. However, phrases such as “Brand X original,” “Brand X equivalent,” “Brand X official,” or “Brand X product” may be unlawful if the product is not genuine, authorized or affiliated.

Marketplace operators should create filters for trademark misuse. Sellers should not be allowed to capture traffic by inserting competitor marks into unrelated listings. Sponsored marketplace ads should also identify whether the product is genuine, compatible, alternative or independent.

The same principles apply to app stores, social commerce platforms, shopping ads and price comparison websites.

Social Media Ads and Competitor Trademarks

Social media advertising may also involve competitor trademarks. A brand may run ads targeting followers of a competitor, use a competitor’s name in ad copy, compare itself to another brand, or use hashtags containing competitor marks.

Targeting users interested in a competitor may raise data and advertising transparency issues depending on the method used. Using the competitor’s mark visibly in ad copy raises trademark, unfair competition and misleading advertising risks.

A social media ad saying “Switch from Brand X to us” may be permissible if truthful and not misleading, but it should not create confusion or denigrate the competitor. A social media ad saying “Brand X official alternative” may be risky. A hashtag such as “#BrandX” used merely to capture competitor traffic may also create legal concerns.

Social media ads should be reviewed in the same way as search ads: trademark use, consumer perception, comparison basis, targeting criteria and landing page context should be assessed together.

Landing Page Confusion

The landing page is part of the advertisement. Even if the ad itself is short, the landing page may complete the misleading impression.

A landing page creates risk if it:

Uses the competitor’s logo prominently.

Copies the competitor’s website design.

Uses similar color schemes and layout.

Claims official service without authorization.

Uses customer service wording that suggests affiliation.

Displays the competitor’s products without clarification.

Hides the advertiser’s independent identity.

Uses testimonials implying official connection.

A small disclaimer at the bottom may not be enough. If the dominant impression is that the advertiser is the competitor or an authorized partner, the landing page may be misleading. The advertiser should clearly identify itself at the top of the page and state its independent status where necessary.

Evidence and Burden of Proof

Online advertising changes quickly. Search ads may appear only in certain locations, at certain times or for certain users. Responsive ads may show different combinations. A competitor may see an ad once and not again. This makes evidence collection important.

A trademark owner or competitor should preserve:

Search term used.

Date and time.

Location and device.

Screenshot of search result.

Sponsored label.

Ad title and description.

Display URL.

Landing page screenshot.

Redirect path.

Domain registration information.

Evidence of confusion.

Advertisers should preserve:

Keyword lists.

Negative keyword lists.

Ad copy versions.

Responsive headline combinations.

Dynamic keyword settings.

Landing page versions.

Trademark authorization documents.

Comparison evidence.

Campaign approval records.

Search engine platform logs.

In Advertising Board investigations, the advertiser may need to explain why a competitor’s mark appeared and whether the ad misled consumers. Strong documentation can reduce legal risk.

Advertising Board Sanctions

The Advertising Board may impose suspension, correction, administrative fines and access blocking in online advertising cases. For 2026, administrative fines for misleading advertisements and unfair commercial practices may range from 99,339 TL to 39,916,524 TL, depending on factors such as the nature of the violation, benefit obtained, harm caused, fault, economic situation of the violator and advertising medium.

The “Kobra” decision resulted in both an administrative fine and suspension of the advertisement. The Board imposed a fine of 550,059 TL and ordered suspension after finding that the advertiser was not the distributor and had manipulated consumer searches by using search terms and ad text connected with the trusted brand.

In competitor trademark advertising disputes, sanctions may be accompanied by civil claims. The trademark owner may file lawsuits for trademark infringement, unfair competition, injunction, removal, damages and publication of judgment. Therefore, administrative advertising sanctions are only one part of the legal risk.

Practical Compliance Checklist for Advertisers

Businesses using online advertising in Turkey should apply the following checklist before launching campaigns involving competitor terms:

Identify all competitor trademarks in keyword lists.

Review whether any competitor mark appears in ad text, title, URL, extension or landing page.

Avoid false “official,” “authorized,” “distributor,” “dealer,” or “service” claims.

Use negative keywords to prevent unintended trademark triggers.

Disable dynamic keyword insertion for competitor keyword groups.

Review automated and responsive ad combinations manually.

Do not use competitor logos or website design unless legally authorized.

Make independent status clear where necessary.

Substantiate all comparative claims.

Avoid denigrating competitors.

Avoid using competitor marks merely to capture traffic.

Review landing pages for confusion risk.

Keep campaign records and screenshots.

Review marketplace product titles and tags.

Train agencies and performance marketing teams.

Monitor live ads regularly.

Practical Compliance Checklist for Trademark Owners

Trademark owners should also monitor online advertising. A brand should regularly search for its trademarks, misspellings, product names and service names. It should check Google Ads, marketplace listings, social media ads, shopping ads and domain names.

When misuse is detected, the trademark owner should collect evidence immediately. Screenshots should include the search term, sponsored label, date, ad text, URL and landing page. If consumer confusion exists, complaints or communications should be preserved.

Possible enforcement steps include platform complaints, cease-and-desist letters, Advertising Board complaints, trademark infringement lawsuits, unfair competition claims, preliminary injunctions and damages actions. The appropriate strategy depends on the seriousness, evidence, urgency and commercial impact.

Best Practices for Agencies and Marketing Teams

Performance marketing teams often focus on clicks, conversion rates and cost per acquisition. However, competitor keyword campaigns require legal oversight. Agencies should not assume that every platform-permitted keyword is legally safe.

Agencies should prepare a restricted keyword list, competitor mark policy and approval workflow. They should avoid using competitor trademarks in visible ad copy unless approved by legal counsel. They should also avoid automated campaign settings that generate brand confusion.

Reports should include not only performance metrics but also compliance metrics: disapproved ads, competitor keyword triggers, complaint history, trademark exclusions, landing page versions and evidence files.

Conclusion

The use of competitors’ trademarks in online advertising in Turkey is a high-risk legal issue. Search engine advertisements, Google Ads, sponsored marketplace listings, social media ads and landing pages may all create trademark infringement, unfair competition and misleading advertising risks when they rely on a competitor’s brand name.

Turkish enforcement practice shows that sponsored search advertisements may be sanctioned where they mislead consumers or exploit competitor reputation. The Advertising Board’s Netflix-related decisions and the Kobra “Türkiye Distribütörü” decision demonstrate that advertisers are responsible for keyword choices, ad wording, search result presentation and misleading official-status impressions.
For advertisers, the safest approach is to avoid competitor trademarks unless the use is legally necessary, truthful, proportionate and non-confusing. Competitor marks should not be used to suggest authorization, distributorship, official service, affiliation or product origin without evidence. Automated ad systems should be controlled carefully. Landing pages should clearly identify the advertiser and avoid confusion.

For trademark owners, active monitoring is essential. Competitor trademark misuse in online advertising can divert traffic quickly and cause consumer confusion before the brand owner notices. Early evidence collection and prompt enforcement can prevent broader harm.

A lawful online advertising strategy in Turkey should generate traffic through transparent competition, not through confusion. Businesses may compete aggressively, but they must not mislead consumers, exploit competitor goodwill or hide behind automated advertising tools. In the Turkish digital market, effective advertising must also be fair, accurate and legally defensible.