Counterfeit and illicitly traded health products remained a persistent concern in Türkiye throughout 2025, as reflected both in enforcement statistics and in external reporting on supply chain integrity. Despite the legal prohibition on the online sale of pharmaceutical products, there has been a noticeable increase in the circulation of counterfeit medicines through online channels, alongside growing reports of products being illicitly exported from Türkiye to foreign…
»
The prices of pharmaceuticals to be launched on the market are determined in accordance with the Decision on the Pricing of Medicinal Products for Human Use (“Decision”) and the Communiqué on the Pricing of Medicinal Products for Human Use (“Communiqué”) dated 29 September 2017, published by the Ministry of Health, which has been authorised to regulate this area.
The Decision foresees a reference pricing system in which the lowest wholesaler price for the relevant product in…
»
NPPs operate as special import regimes that enable access to medicines that are either not authorised in Türkiye or are temporarily unavailable on the domestic market, upon the request of a treating physician. Fundamentally designed to address urgent or exceptional patient needs, the NPP framework has gradually evolved into a more structured and regulated supply mechanism.
A significant step in this evolution was the entry into force of the Regulation on the Importation of…
»
Alternative reimbursement models in Türkiye provide pathways for innovative medicines to gain coverage outside standard pricing rules, allowing the Social Security Institution (“SSI”) to negotiate terms such as discounts, budget caps, or other arrangements. These models, formalised under the 2016 Regulation on Alternative Reimbursement and updated in 2023, aim to improve patient access while managing healthcare expenditures.
The Regulation on Alternative Reimbursement…
»
In a recent decision of the Turkish Court of Cassation (Merit No. 2024/6138, Decision No. 2025/3800), the Court conducted a holistic comparison between a globally renowned energy drink brand and a motor oil brand, examining all aspects, from the similarity of the goods to the colors and figurative elements used in the disputed trademarks.
Background
The dispute involved, on the one side, the plaintiff’s well-known marks in the energy drinks sector – the word mark “MONSTER…
»
This article examines a lawsuit concerning the use of a trademark, after it was registered in Türkiye by a third party, with the aim of threatening infringement proceedings against the company that is the rightful owner of the mark and evaluates how the courts protect the genuine rights holder against bad faith registration.
Background
The dispute concerned the bad faith registration of a trademark that had previously been registered in Türkiye in the name of Stiefel…
»
As is known, pursuant to Article 2/1(a) of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577, it is possible for persons whose interests have been violated to file an action for annulment against administrative acts on the grounds that such acts are unlawful in terms of authority, form, cause, subject matter, or purpose.
In such a relevant case the claimant alleges that the administrative act established by the defendant administration is contrary to the law and seeks its annulment.…
»
In European Union (“EU”) legislation relating to trademark law, the concept of bad faith in trademark applications is not explicitly defined, nor are its boundaries clearly established. Although EU case-law provides significant guidance on the concept, it has been observed that there are different interpretations in practice and there are challenges in regard to achieving uniformity, making it difficult to foresee the manner in which assessment of claims of bad faith are…
»
With its decision dated 01.08.2024 and numbered 24-32/758-319, the Turkish Competition Authority (“TCA”) rendered a landmark ruling that will be debated in the literature for a long time to come with regard to the delicate balance between IP law and competition law. The TCA concluded that the relevant economic entity, by using three-dimensional (“3D”) marks owned by company under investigation (“The Right Owner”) had abused its dominant position, by excluding its competitors…
»
In accordance with Article 26 of the Industrial Property Code (“IP Code”) no. 6769, interested persons may request the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (“the Office”) to revoke a trademark.
The authority to revoke the trademarks had belonged to the IP Courts. However, with the entry into force of the IP Code on January 10, 2017, this authority has been granted to the Office. In order to provide a transition period, the entry into force of Article 26 had been postponed for…
»
The year 2025 did not mark a fundamental transformation in the protection of intellectual property rights in Türkiye; however, it may be described as a period during which practice became more predictable in certain areas. It would be fair to say that judges appointed in recent years have gradually become more adapted to the dynamics of intellectual property law, and this has contributed to a more predictable approach in terms of the reasoning of decisions and the management…
»
The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry updated the Guideline on the Turkish Food Codex Regulation on Food Labelling and Consumer Information on 13 March 2026. The update introduces new explanations regarding labelling, presentation and advertising practices, while adopting a notably protective approach, particularly with respect to products aimed at children.
With the introduction of Article 2.28 into the Guideline, it has been prohibited to place foods on the market with…
»
