Türkiye’s 2025 IP Practice: Stability Strengthens as Courts and Agencies Refine Approaches

The year 2025 did not bring a fundamental transformation to the protection of intellectual property rights in Türkiye. However, it was marked by a period in which practice became more predictable in several key areas. Judges appointed in recent years have increasingly adapted to the complexities of intellectual property law, contributing to more consistent reasoning in decisions and improved management of legal proceedings.

Throughout the year, a significant number of preliminary injunction decisions were issued, especially in trademark infringement disputes across diverse sectors. Preliminary injunctions continue to serve as a vital mechanism for halting the spread of infringements and protecting the commercial interests of rights holders without the need to await the outcome of main proceedings. Compared to previous years, delays in granting such injunctions have largely been resolved. When evidence is prepared in a robust and systematic manner, the preliminary injunction process can be utilized effectively.

Despite these advancements, full consistency in practice has not yet been achieved. Certain courts still adopt differing approaches when assessing the standard of proof and the conditions required for granting preliminary injunctions. Nevertheless, the overall direction of practice is viewed as positive, with greater predictability emerging in many cases.

Delays in expert examinations persisted throughout 2025. However, the Intellectual and Industrial Property Courts in Ankara and İzmir have often managed to produce expert reports within relatively short timeframes. In contrast, the Istanbul Intellectual and Industrial Property Courts continue to face challenges due to heavy caseloads, which can hinder the effective management of expert workloads. Even so, close monitoring of the process by the courts has generally ensured that the expert phase is completed within a reasonable period.

Structural difficulties remain in monetary compensation actions, particularly in damages claims. Defendants frequently refrain from submitting financial and commercial data, making it difficult to calculate the exact amount of damage. The more systematic use of sector-based royalty analyses and the development of precedent licensing practices are seen as potential solutions to foster more predictable and balanced damage assessments. This area remains open for further development.

Bad faith trademark applications continue to be a major concern in Türkiye. However, the approach to addressing such applications is now considered well established. Both the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office and specialized IP courts assess bad faith claims using concrete criteria, such as the commercial relationship between the parties, the similarity of the marks, and the timing of the applications. This approach positions Türkiye relatively strongly compared to many other jurisdictions in terms of protection against bad faith registrations.

Regarding revocation actions based on non-use before the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office, practice has become more settled as of 2025. Following the entry into force of the mechanism in 2024, initial uncertainties arose pending the issuance of secondary legislation. However, as the number of decisions has increased, it is observed that evidence of use is examined carefully, with genuine, serious, and commercial use assessed based on concrete criteria. This has contributed to the establishment of a clearer framework for parties involved in such proceedings.

Challenges continue in the fight against counterfeiting. Search and seizure processes within criminal investigations, as well as enforcement stages, are still subject to significant delays. Various training sessions and coordination meetings have been organized to address the practical issues that contribute to these delays, but the problem remains an ongoing concern.

In conclusion, 2025 was not a year of dramatic change for Turkish IP practice. However, it was characterized by increased stability and predictability in several areas. The effective use of preliminary injunctions, the established approach to bad faith applications, and the growing clarity in non-use revocation proceedings stand out as strengths of the current system. At the same time, the calculation of damages and the efficiency of criminal enforcement processes remain areas in need of further improvement.