IP INFRINGEMENT ON THE INTERNET
The globalisation of the digital economy has shifted a substantial share of intellectual and industrial property infringements from physical markets to online platforms. This transformation exposes rightholders not only to traditional forms of infringement, but also to an entirely new spectrum of risks arising from the borderless, instantaneous and frequently anonymous nature of the internet. Article 7/3(d) of Industrial Property Code No. 6769 (the "IPC") expressly enumerates the use of a sign — in a manner producing commercial effect — as a domain name, metatag or keyword among the acts which a trademark proprietor is entitled to prohibit. Article Additional 4 of Law No. 5846 on Intellectual and Artistic Works (the "FSEK") has, in turn, introduced the "notice and take-down" mechanism into Turkish law for the protection of copyright in the digital environment. At Budak Intellectual Property, we provide our clients with comprehensive protection against online infringements, ranging from the identification and evidentiary preservation of the infringing conduct, to cease-and-desist letters, civil litigation and criminal complaints.
Trademark infringements on the internet most commonly arise through domain names, metatags and keywords. The use of an identical sign or a confusingly similar imitation of a registered trademark — without any legitimate connection to the proprietor and in a manner producing commercial effect — whether as a domain name or as a paid keyword in search engine advertising systems such as Google Ads, constitutes infringement under Articles 7 and 29 of the IPC. The placement of trademarks within the HTML source code of websites by way of metatags, even though invisible to the end user, manipulates organic search results and adversely affects the advertising and investment functions of the mark; such conduct amounts to parasitic exploitation and unfair appropriation of the trademark's selling power. Within this scope, cybersquatting, typosquatting, reverse domain name hijacking, hidden text insertion, keyword stuffing and other "black hat" SEO techniques (spamdexing) constitute archetypal forms of online trademark infringement. With respect to trademarks with a reputation, the protection extends — pursuant to Articles 6/5 and 7/2(c) of the IPC — even to use in connection with dissimilar goods and services, where such use takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or reputation of the earlier mark.
Patent and other industrial property infringements on the internet predominantly manifest themselves through the offering for sale, advertising and distribution of counterfeit goods or unauthorised embodiments of patented inventions on e-commerce platforms, social media and digital marketplaces. The placing on the market, holding for commercial purposes, importation or exportation of a product covered by a patent without the proprietor's consent constitutes direct infringement under Article 141 of the IPC; moreover, beyond literal copying, the doctrine of equivalents brings within the scope of protection the online marketing of technical solutions that perform substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result. The unauthorised reproduction of registered designs on online platforms, the promotion of utility models in digital catalogues, and indeed the three-dimensional modelling of protected products in immersive environments such as the metaverse — where such conduct produces commercial effect — collectively form the new frontier of industrial property infringement. On the copyright side, the unauthorised reproduction and dissemination of music, film, books, photographs, software and video games via social media feeds, torrent networks and streaming platforms represent the most prevalent forms of infringement under Articles 22 (right of reproduction), 25 (right of communication to the public) and 71 (criminal sanctions) of the FSEK. The copying of an original website design, user interface, algorithm or proprietary database, in turn, enjoys dual legal protection — both under copyright law and under Articles 54 et seq. of the Turkish Commercial Code on unfair competition.
Domain name disputes constitute a distinct sub-category of online infringement. Disputes concerning generic top-level domains (gTLDs) are resolved before competent panels — most notably the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center — under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) adopted by ICANN. In Türkiye, disputes concerning .tr country-code domain names are resolved by the Dispute Resolution Service Providers authorised by TRABİS (Turkish Domain Names Information System) — namely the Information Technologies and Internet Security Association (BTİDER), the TOBBUYUM Mediation and Dispute Resolution Centre, and the Istanbul Arbitration Centre (ISTAC). As regards the liability of online intermediaries, a combined reading of Law No. 5651 on the Regulation of Publications on the Internet and Combating Crimes Committed through such Publications and Article Additional 4 of the FSEK reveals that content providers bear direct liability for the materials they generate, whereas hosting and access providers may be held liable only where they fail, after due notice of the unlawful content, to act upon a notice and take-down request within a reasonable time. International instruments such as the EU E-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC) and the United States Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) likewise embody this safe harbour principle. At Budak Intellectual Property, we develop a holistic legal strategy for the protection of intellectual property rights in the digital environment — encompassing notarised online evidence preservation, drafting of cease-and-desist letters, domain name arbitration proceedings (UDRP/TRABİS), platform-based takedown procedures (Amazon Brand Registry, eBay VeRO, Trendyol IP Programme, Instagram and Meta IP Reporting), access-blocking and content-removal applications under Article Additional 4 of the FSEK and Article 9 of Law No. 5651, as well as full civil and criminal litigation before the Turkish Specialised IP Courts and Public Prosecution Offices.