Turkey IP Law 2026: What the Draft Intellectual Property Code Means for Trademarks, Designs and Brand Enforcement

Turkey IP law is entering its most significant period of reform since the Industrial Property Law (Law No. 6769) consolidated the country’s IP framework in 2017. The Draft Intellectual Property Code circulated in 2026 proposes sweeping changes, from explicit statutory protection for unregistered designs to overhauled trademark opposition and administrative cancellation mechanics, that will reshape how brand owners register, maintain and enforce their rights in the Turkish market. For in-house counsel, IP managers and general counsels operating in or exporting to Turkey, the practical question is no longer whether the rules are changing but how quickly portfolios and enforcement strategies need to adapt.

This guide delivers a practitioner-focused analysis of every major Draft Code change, supported by actionable checklists, evidence templates and a 90-day action plan.

TL;DR, What Turkey Brand Owners Need to Know About the 2026 Draft IP Code

The Draft Intellectual Property Code represents Turkey’s most ambitious IP reform effort in nearly a decade. Below are the headline changes and recommended immediate actions for brand owners and their counsel.

• Unregistered design protection goes statutory. The Draft Code introduces explicit protection for unregistered designs, creating a defined term and evidentiary framework. Fashion, cosmetics and packaging brands should begin preserving first-disclosure evidence immediately.
• Trademark opposition and cancellation mechanics are tightened. Industry observers expect new administrative cancellation procedures to reduce reliance on costly court actions, with stricter documentary standards for proof of use and shorter procedural timelines.
• Proof-of-use requirements are expanded. The Draft Code is expected to impose clearer standards on what constitutes genuine use, making evidence gathering a priority for every portfolio holder.
• Customs enforcement gets procedural clarity. Updated guidance from the General Directorate of Customs aligns border seizure procedures with EU-style recordal systems, streamlining anti-counterfeiting customs enforcement in Turkey.
• AI-generated content authorship is addressed. Early indications suggest the Draft Code interacts with existing copyright provisions (Law No. 5846) to require human authorship for registrable works, raising compliance questions for brands using generative AI in design and marketing.
• Criminal enforcement and raid coordination are refined. The Draft Code preserves criminal sanctions for counterfeiting while clarifying coordination procedures between IP holders, prosecutors and law enforcement agencies.

Background: Current Turkey IP Law vs the Draft Intellectual Property Code

Understanding what the Draft Code changes requires a clear picture of the current legislative landscape. Turkey’s IP framework rests on two principal statutes: the Industrial Property Law (Law No. 6769), which governs trademarks, patents, utility models and industrial designs; and the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works (Law No. 5846), which covers copyright and related rights. Together, these laws and the regulations issued by the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (TÜRKPATENT) form the backbone of IP protection in the country.

Snapshot, Law No. 6769 Today

Enacted in 2017 and published in the Official Gazette, Law No. 6769 replaced Turkey’s earlier decree-law system with a consolidated statute. It established TÜRKPATENT as the central authority for trademark registrations, design applications and patent grants, and introduced structured opposition and appeal procedures. The law aligned Turkey’s industrial property regime more closely with EU standards but left certain gaps, notably around unregistered designs, administrative cancellation and proof-of-use standards, that the Draft Code now seeks to fill.

What the Draft Intellectual Property Law in Turkey Changes

The Draft Code, which has been the subject of TÜRKPATENT announcements, symposia and stakeholder consultations throughout 2026, proposes changes across multiple pillars of IP protection. The table below provides a side-by-side comparison of the most consequential shifts.

The likely practical effect of these changes will be a shift of strategic responsibility onto brand owners: proactive monitoring, timely oppositions and rigorous evidence management will become non-negotiable. Waiting for TÜRKPATENT to flag conflicts ex officio will no longer be a viable strategy under the reformed turkey ip law regime.

Trademarks: What Changes for Registration, Opposition, Proof-of-Use and Cancellations Under the Draft Code

The trademark provisions in the Draft Code represent the single largest block of practical changes for brand owners. From clearance through to enforcement, every stage of the trademark lifecycle is touched by the reform.

Expanded Trademark Types and New Classification Requirements

Under current turkey ip law, TÜRKPATENT accepts applications for word marks, figurative marks, three-dimensional marks and colour marks. Non-traditional marks, such as sound marks, motion marks, holograms and position marks, have been accepted in limited circumstances, but the filing requirements have been inconsistent and applicants have often faced uncertainty about representation standards.

The Draft Code is expected to formalise these categories, creating explicit filing requirements for each non-traditional mark type. Industry observers expect this to include mandatory electronic file formats for sound marks (e.g., MP3 with specifiable duration limits), sequential image requirements for motion marks, and standardised representation protocols for hologram and position marks. For brand owners in consumer electronics, entertainment, luxury goods and food and beverage, this creates an opportunity to secure registrations that were previously difficult or impossible to obtain in Turkey.

Practical step: audit existing portfolios now for any brand elements, jingles, packaging animations, interface holograms, that could qualify for protection under the expanded categories once the Draft Code takes effect.

How Will Trademark Opposition Procedures Change in Turkey?

The opposition mechanics under the Draft Code represent a fundamental rebalancing of the trademark opposition process in Turkey. The key changes are as follows:

• Removal of ex officio relative-ground examination. Under the current system, TÜRKPATENT examiners can refuse applications that conflict with earlier marks on relative grounds. The Draft Code is expected to remove this ex officio power, meaning that brand owners must file their own oppositions or risk losing the opportunity to block conflicting applications.
• Tighter opposition timelines. Early indications suggest the Draft Code will maintain the current two-month opposition window following publication in the Official Trademark Bulletin, but may introduce stricter deadlines for evidence submission within the proceeding itself.
• Co-existence principle formalised. The Draft Code is expected to provide clearer guidelines on how TÜRKPATENT should evaluate co-existence agreements submitted during opposition proceedings, giving rights holders a structured pathway to resolve conflicts without full adversarial proceedings.
• Evidence of use can be requested by the applicant. Where the opponent’s earlier mark has been registered for five or more years, the applicant will be able to request proof that the mark has been put to genuine use. If the opponent cannot demonstrate use, the opposition may be dismissed.

These changes demand a more proactive approach from every trademark portfolio holder. A robust watching service and rapid-response opposition strategy will become essential components of any brand protection programme operating under Turkey IP law.

Administrative Cancellation in Turkey, New Grounds, Procedure and Defences

One of the most consequential reforms in the Draft Code is the introduction of full administrative trademark cancellation before TÜRKPATENT. Under the current framework, cancellation of a registered trademark typically requires filing an action before the specialised IP courts, a process that is costly, time-consuming and procedurally complex.

The Draft Code is expected to allow any interested party to file an administrative cancellation request directly with TÜRKPATENT on grounds including non-use, generic character, deceptiveness and bad faith. The likely procedure will include:

1. Filing a cancellation petition with TÜRKPATENT, specifying grounds and attaching supporting evidence.
2. Notification to the registered owner, who will have a defined period (industry observers expect approximately two months) to submit a defence and proof of use.
3. TÜRKPATENT decision, subject to appeal before the IP courts.

For respondents defending against cancellation, the evidence of use will need to meet new documentary standards. The table below summarises the evidence-of-use checklist that brand owners should begin assembling now.

Evidence of Use Checklist for TÜRKPATENT Proceedings

• Sales invoices and financial records. Invoices showing sales of goods or services bearing the mark, with dates within the relevant five-year period, addressed to Turkish customers or distributors.
• Marketing and advertising materials. Print advertisements, digital campaign screenshots, social media posts and trade fair participation records demonstrating active promotion of the mark in Turkey.
• Product photographs and packaging samples. Dated photographs showing the mark as applied to goods or packaging, ideally with metadata or notarisation confirming dates.
• Distribution and supply-chain documentation. Customs import/export records, logistics contracts and warehouse receipts corroborating the movement of branded goods into or within Turkey.
• Licence agreements and franchisee records. If use is through a licensee, signed licence agreements and evidence of the licensee’s commercial activity under the mark.
• Internet analytics and e-commerce data. Website traffic reports, online marketplace sales data and domain registration records linking the mark to Turkish commercial activity.
• Declarations and witness statements. Notarised declarations from company officers or business partners attesting to the nature, duration and extent of use.

Early preparation of this evidence package is critical. Once administrative cancellation mechanics go live, competitors will have a fast, cost-effective tool to challenge dormant or under-used registrations, making proof-of-use gathering one of the highest-priority compliance tasks under the reformed turkey ip law framework.

Designs (Registered and Unregistered): Scope, Term and Enforcement Under the Draft Code

The design provisions of the Draft Code address one of the most significant gaps in Turkey’s current IP framework: the lack of a clear statutory basis for protecting unregistered designs.

Unregistered Designs, Scope, Industries and Term of Protection in Turkey

Under current Law No. 6769, industrial design protection is available only through registration with TÜRKPATENT. Rights holders who disclose a design without registering it have had to rely on unfair competition provisions, copyright (where applicable) and general tort law, a patchwork approach that has produced inconsistent results in Turkish courts.

The Draft Code is expected to introduce explicit unregistered designs protection in Turkey, modelled in part on the EU’s Community unregistered design right. Key expected features include:

• Protection term. A defined period of protection (industry observers anticipate three years) from the date of first disclosure to the public within Turkey.
• Scope. Protection against deliberate copying of the design. Unlike registered design rights, unregistered protection would not extend to independent creation.
• Evidentiary burden. The rights holder must demonstrate the date and content of first disclosure, making contemporaneous evidence preservation essential.
• Territorial limit. Protection is expected to apply only to disclosures made within Turkish territory or to the Turkish public, creating strategic questions for brands that launch designs internationally before entering the Turkish market.

For fashion houses, cosmetics companies, furniture manufacturers and packaging designers, this reform creates both opportunities and obligations. The immediate action item is to establish a first-disclosure documentation protocol.

Sector-specific immediate actions:

• Fashion and textiles. Photograph every seasonal collection with timestamped metadata before trade shows or wholesale presentations. Retain lookbook PDFs with embedded dates.
• Cosmetics and beauty. Preserve packaging mock-ups, bottle designs and point-of-sale display concepts with notarised or blockchain-timestamped records.
• Furniture and homewares. Maintain CAD files, prototype photographs and production records with clear date trails.
• Food and beverage packaging. Archive label designs, structural packaging specifications and marketing brief documents with version histories.

Registered Designs, Filing Strategy Changes

While the Draft Code’s most dramatic change is the introduction of unregistered protection, registered design provisions are also being refined. The likely practical effects include clarified novelty and individual character assessment criteria, streamlined multiple-design application procedures and updated priority claim mechanics aligned with international filing conventions. Brand owners with active design portfolios should review their filing strategies with local counsel to ensure compliance with any new formal requirements once the Draft Code is enacted.

IP Enforcement in Turkey: TÜRKPATENT, Customs, Civil and Criminal Routes

Effective IP enforcement in Turkey requires a multi-channel approach. The Draft Code preserves and in some cases enhances the existing enforcement toolkit, while procedural refinements aim to make each channel more accessible and efficient. To find an IP lawyer experienced in Turkish enforcement proceedings, brand owners should seek practitioners with track records before both TÜRKPATENT and the specialised IP courts.

Administrative Routes, TÜRKPATENT Oppositions and Cancellation Actions

As discussed in the trademarks section above, TÜRKPATENT is being positioned as a more active administrative adjudicator. For rights holders, this means that oppositions and (once available) administrative cancellation actions will become front-line enforcement tools, faster and less expensive than court proceedings, though with the trade-off of more limited procedural scope.

Key considerations for TÜRKPATENT administrative enforcement include ensuring that all evidence is properly notarised or otherwise authenticated, that translations are certified where required and that deadlines are calendared with no margin for error. The short windows for response and evidence submission leave little room for late preparation.

Anti-Counterfeiting Customs Enforcement in Turkey, Seizure Procedures and Required Documentation

Turkey’s General Directorate of Customs, operating under the Ministry of Trade, administers border measures for IP protection. The customs recordal system allows rights holders to register their IP rights with customs authorities, who can then detain suspected infringing goods at the border ex officio or upon application.

The following checklist outlines the steps and documentation required for a customs seizure application, based on guidance published by the General Directorate of Customs:

1. Prepare the customs recordal application. Submit a formal application to the General Directorate of Customs identifying the IP rights to be protected, with certified copies of registration certificates.
2. Provide product identification materials. Include detailed descriptions of genuine products, high-resolution photographs, technical specifications and distinguishing features that differentiate genuine goods from counterfeits.
3. Submit known counterfeit intelligence. Where available, include information about known counterfeit sources, shipping routes, common points of entry and packaging characteristics of infringing goods.
4. Designate an authorised representative. Appoint a Turkish-based representative or customs broker who can be contacted at short notice when goods are detained.
5. Provide a security deposit or guarantee. Turkish customs may require a financial guarantee to cover potential damages to the importer if the goods are ultimately found to be genuine.
6. Monitor and respond to detention notifications. When customs authorities detain suspected infringing goods, the rights holder has a defined period to confirm the infringement and, if necessary, initiate court proceedings to prevent release of the goods.

Brand owners that maintain current customs recordals and provide regularly updated product intelligence significantly increase the likelihood of successful border seizures. This proactive approach to anti-counterfeiting customs enforcement in Turkey is especially important for consumer goods brands facing high volumes of grey-market or counterfeit imports.

Criminal Enforcement and Raids, When to Escalate

Turkish criminal law provides for prosecution of trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy. Under the current framework, criminal complaints can be filed with the public prosecutor, who may authorise search and seizure operations in coordination with law enforcement. The Draft Code is expected to refine coordination procedures and evidentiary requirements without fundamentally altering the criminal enforcement framework.

Criminal enforcement is most appropriate when:

• Counterfeiting is conducted on a commercial scale and administrative or civil remedies are insufficient to deter the infringer.
• There is evidence of organised counterfeit manufacturing or distribution networks.
• Repeat infringers have disregarded previous civil orders or TÜRKPATENT decisions.
• Rapid seizure of infringing goods and production equipment is needed to prevent evidence destruction.

The criminal complaint should include: certified copies of the relevant IP registrations; samples or photographs of the infringing goods; a detailed comparison between genuine and counterfeit products; and any intelligence about the identity, location and operations of the suspected infringer. Coordination with experienced local counsel and, where applicable, the Union of Turkish Bar Associations’ guidelines on enforcement practice is recommended.

Border Measures vs Marketplace Takedowns, Quick Decision Matrix

AI, Copyright and Content Issues Under the Draft Code

The intersection of artificial intelligence and copyright is emerging as one of the most closely watched dimensions of Turkey IP law reform. While the Draft Code does not create an entirely new AI-specific IP regime, its interaction with the existing copyright framework under Law No. 5846 raises important questions for brands and content platforms.

Under Law No. 5846, copyright protection attaches to works that bear the personal imprint of their creator, a standard that inherently requires human authorship. Industry observers expect the Draft Code to preserve this human-authorship requirement, meaning that purely AI-generated works, created without meaningful human creative input, would not qualify for copyright protection under Turkish law.

For brands using generative AI tools in product design, marketing content and packaging development, the practical implications include:

• Document human creative input. Maintain detailed records of human direction, selection, arrangement and editing applied to AI-generated outputs to support authorship claims.
• Review licensing terms for AI tools. Ensure that the terms of service for generative AI platforms do not create conflicting ownership claims over outputs used in Turkish-market products.
• Consider registered design protection. Where AI-assisted designs meet the novelty and individual character thresholds, filing a registered design application with TÜRKPATENT may provide stronger protection than relying on copyright alone.
• Update employment and contractor agreements. Ensure that IP assignment clauses in employment contracts and freelancer agreements address AI-assisted creative output and clearly assign rights to the commissioning brand.

The AI copyright landscape in Turkey is expected to evolve rapidly as the Draft Code progresses through the legislative process, and brands should monitor TÜRKPATENT announcements and Ministry of Industry and Technology policy statements for further guidance.

Practical 90-Day Action Plan for Brand Owners

The reforms outlined above demand structured preparation. The following 90-day action plan prioritises the most time-sensitive steps for brand owners and their IP teams.

Urgent, Complete Within 30 Days

• Update customs recordals with the General Directorate of Customs. Ensure all registered marks and designs are on the customs watchlist with current product identification materials.
• Calendar all pending opposition and cancellation deadlines. With procedural timelines expected to tighten, ensure no pending matters are at risk of default.
• Appoint or confirm a Turkish-based authorised representative for customs detention responses.

High Priority, Complete Within 60 Days

• Conduct a full portfolio audit. Identify registrations that may be vulnerable to non-use cancellation and begin assembling evidence-of-use files for each mark.
• Review clearance and watching protocols. With ex officio relative-ground refusals expected to be removed, ensure that a third-party watching service is in place for all core marks.
• Audit unregistered designs. Identify any designs disclosed in Turkey that are not yet registered and assess whether retroactive filing or first-disclosure documentation is appropriate.

Medium Priority, Complete Within 90 Days

• Begin systematic proof-of-use evidence gathering for all marks registered for five or more years. Compile the evidence package outlined in the checklist above.
• Review AI usage policies and update IP assignment clauses in employment and contractor agreements.
• Brief internal stakeholders, legal, marketing, supply chain and product development teams, on the practical impact of the Draft Code and establish ongoing monitoring responsibilities.

Appendix, Key Legislative References and How to Read TÜRKPATENT Notices

Staying current with Turkey IP law reform requires regular monitoring of several official sources. The primary legislative texts and notice channels are:

• TÜRKPATENT Laws and Regulations page. The official repository for current statutes, regulations and procedural communiqués, including any Draft Code publications and stakeholder consultation notices.
• Official Gazette of the Republic of Türkiye (Resmi Gazete). All enacted laws and regulations are published here. Monitor for the Draft Code’s formal promulgation and any transitional provisions.
• WIPO WIPOLex. Maintains the international community’s authoritative English-language versions of Turkish IP legislation, including Law No. 6769.
• Ministry of Industry and Technology. Publishes policy statements, ministerial guidance and strategic plans relating to IP and innovation policy.
• General Directorate of Customs (Gümrükler Genel Müdürlüğü). Publishes customs procedural guidance, recordal application forms and training materials for rights holders seeking border enforcement.

When reviewing TÜRKPATENT notices, pay close attention to transitional provisions, effective dates and any implementing regulations that may follow the main statute. The practical details, filing forms, fee schedules, documentary requirements, often appear in secondary regulations published weeks or months after the primary law.

Sources

1. TÜRKPATENT, Laws and Regulations
2. WIPO, WIPOLex
3. Resmi Gazete (Official Gazette of the Republic of Türkiye)
4. Republic of Turkey, Ministry of Industry and Technology
5. Gümrükler Genel Müdürlüğü (General Directorate of Customs)
6. Türkiye Barolar Birliği (Union of Turkish Bar Associations)