01 Two Important Decisions from the Ankara Regional Court of Appeals on Procedural Issues in Trademark Cancellation Actions
A. Introduction
The reasoned decision of the Ankara Civil Court of Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights ("Ankara IP Court") issued in a trademark cancellation action has been reversed twice by the Ankara Regional Court of Appeals ("Ankara Appeal Court") on procedural grounds without an examination of the merits of the case.
The first decision of the Ankara Appeal Court concerns the violation of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 ("CCP") due to the inclusion of the visual of the disputed mark in the reasoned decision. The second decision concerns the contradiction with the Code of Execution and Bankruptcy No. 2004 ("CEB") due to the violation of the rule that civil proceedings in which the bankrupt party is a plaintiff or defendant must be suspended and may only be continued 10 days after the second meeting of creditors.
B. The First Decision — Violation of the CCP
Following the refusal of its opposition and appeal by the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office ("TPTO") Re-Examination and Evaluation Board ("Board"), the plaintiff filed a cancellation action before the Ankara IP Court in December 2016 requesting the cancellation of the Board's decision and the invalidation of the disputed mark against the owner of the disputed mark and the TPTO as co-defendants.
The disputed mark has been recorded as a figurative mark, but, in fact, it is a stylized version of some letters, which is identical to the plaintiff's well-known trademark series. The name of the disputed mark is indicated as a "figure" before the TPTO's records by the owner.
The expert report prepared by the court-appointed expert panel was in favor of the plaintiff. Following the conclusion of the judicial proceedings, the Ankara IP Court accepted the plaintiff's requests and decided on the cancellation of the Board's decision, as well as the invalidation of the disputed mark. Since the disputed mark is a figurative mark, the Ankara IP Court included the trademark visual in its reasoned decision.
The TPTO then filed an appeal against the Ankara IP Court's reasoned decision before the Ankara Appeal Court.
In its first decision, the Ankara Appeal Court ruled that although the courts, if necessary, may include sketches and figures as annexes to the judgment, the inclusion of figures in the reasoning part of the judgment in a manner that is not in compliance with the provisions of Article 297 of the CCP1 and Article 141 of the Turkish Constitution2 may lead to lawsuits emerging from the lawsuit, causing further disputes between the parties and hesitation in execution. Incomplete inclusion of trademarks and designs in the reasoned decision, and the lack of color, size and other characteristics, may lead to misleading results.
Accordingly, the Ankara Appeal Court reversed the Ankara IP Court's decision on the ground that the inclusion of the visual of the disputed mark in the reasoned decision is not in compliance with Article 297 of the CCP by also referring to a number of rulings of the Supreme Court of Appeals. While the Ankara Appeal Court is entitled to conduct both legal and factual examination and issue a new decision altogether or correct the first instance court's decision, in this case, it sent the file back to the Ankara IP Court for retrial by indicating that there is no ruling that is suitable for legal and factual review.
C. The Second Decision — Violation of the CEB
Subsequently, the file was sent back to the Ankara IP Court and received a new merits number. In the meantime, the owner of the disputed mark went bankrupt and was undergoing liquidation. At the first hearing after the file was sent back, the Ankara IP Court decided to obtain information on the liquidation process and the finalization of the bankruptcy decision, as well as to suspend the proceedings until 10 days after the second meeting of creditors. The Ankara IP Court then adjourned the hearing for a few months.
However, in the second hearing, the Ankara IP Court once more accepted the lawsuit and issued a new reasoned decision, this time removing the visuals of the contested mark. In this second reasoned decision, the Ankara IP Court indicated that while it had previously decided on the suspension of the proceedings, it now renounced this earlier suspension decision and issued its ruling on the merits of the case without waiting for the second meeting of creditors, due to the intensity of the hearings and the serial files.
The TPTO once again filed an appeal against the Ankara IP Court's second reasoned decision before the Ankara Appeal Court.
In its second decision, the Ankara Appeal Court noted that it was understood from the file that the bankruptcy decision issued about the defendant has not been finalized, the second meeting of creditors has not yet been held and no date has been determined. In line with Article 194/1 of the CEB3 , the Ankara IP Court initially decided on the suspension of the proceedings. However, it was erroneous for the Ankara IP Court to issue a decision on the merits by ignoring the fact that no decision can be issued as long as the proceedings are suspended.
The Ankara Appeal Court reversed the Ankara IP Court's decision for a second time due to the violation of the CEB and sent the file back to the Ankara IP Court for retrial. The file received another merits number and is currently pending before the Ankara IP Court.
D. Conclusion
The decisions of the Ankara Appeal Court show how crucial it is for the courts of first instance to strictly follow procedural rules and comply with these rules at every step of the proceedings. First, it is important that the courts of first instance not include the visuals of the disputed marks in their reasoned decisions, even if the disputed marks solely consist of figurative elements. Second, if one of the parties went bankrupt and is in the liquidation process, the court proceedings must be suspended in accordance with the CEB rules, even if the court's decision on the merits of the case would remain the same.
Non-compliance with the procedural rules also seriously affects the overall timeline for the final resolution of the disputes. The application date of the disputed mark is December 2014, and the dispute over the trademark is still active and pending for almost a decade. That the cancellation action has been pending for almost seven years, the Ankara Appeal Court has not yet reviewed the merits of the case and there is a further appeal stage before the Supreme Court of Appeals are all strong indications of the excessive length of (IP-related) court proceedings in Türkiye.
A last point that the rights owners should pay attention to is that the cancellation actions filed against the TPTO Board's decisions are filed against both the TPTO and the owner(s) of the disputed mark(s) as co-defendants. Since the TPTO is an administrative authority and a part of the court action, as a result of which it can also bear the financial burden of an unfavorable decision, the TPTO almost always files further appeals before the Regional Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Appeals against unfavorable first instance court decisions, irrespective of the chances of success on merits.
On the other hand, invalidation actions are only filed against the owner(s) of the disputed mark(s), and the owner(s) may — depending on the circumstances — decide not to pursue the file before the appeal courts. This should be considered when evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of filing a cancellation action against the Board's decision or directly proceeding with an invalidation action since the two different appeal procedures considerably prolong the finalization of the first instance court decision.
02 European Commission 2023 Türkiye Report: Findings on Intellectual Property Law
A.Scope and Significance of the Report
Türkiye was granted candidate country status to the European Union ("EU") in 1999. Accession negotiations between the EU and Türkiye began in October 2005. Within the framework of the accession negotiations, 16 chapters, including on intellectual property law, were opened and one chapter was provisionally closed. Accession negotiations have been paused since 2018.
The European Commission ("Commission") publishes country reports for candidate countries and potential candidate countries every year. The 2023 Türkiye Report ("Report"), which is the 25th report prepared for Türkiye, was published on 8 November 20237. This article discusses the Commission's findings regarding the state of intellectual property law in Türkiye.
B.Report's Findings on Intellectual Property Law
The findings of the Report are analyzed under three main categories: copyright and related rights, industrial property rights and enforcement of rights. The EU has harmonized legislation regarding the legal protection of intellectual property rights (IPR), including copyright and related rights protecting books, films, computer programs or (radio-television) broadcasts, as well as industrial property rights protecting patents, trademarks, designs, biotechnological inventions or pharmaceuticals. These rights have been enforced through various regulations8 and directives9.
Overall, the Commission states that Türkiye is in a good position in terms of alignment with EU legislation. However, it reveals that no progress has been made on the implementation of the recommendations made in the previous year's report10 11. According to the EU, the primary issues Türkiye needs to resolve are legislative inconsistencies and enforcement issues, with particular consideration for judicial processes.
With regard to copyrights and linking rights, the Report mentions that Türkiye has amended Law No. 5846 on Intellectual Property and Artistic Works ("FSEK") to extend legal protection of technological measures to all works, performances, phonograms, productions and publications in addition to computer programs12.
The Commission has highlighted that the FSEK has not yet been fully modernized to provide adequate protection for copyright and related rights, particularly in light of technological developments. According to the EU, systematic issues continue to persist, such as collective rights management, lack of autonomy and oversight of collective rights management organizations, and discrimination against foreign right holders in the management of these organizations.
The Commission also underlines that several issues remain unresolved, including the fair distribution of private copying fees, licensing difficulties, uncertainties regarding online education exceptions, rights of representation issues and unauthorized use of copyright protected materials through online platforms of wellknown e-commerce sites. As of now, Türkiye's legislation and policies do not fully comply with the Directive on Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Single Market13.
With respect to industrial property rights, it is stated that the TPTO has continued its efforts to strengthen its administrative capacity and digitize its services. According to the Commission, the lack of a precise definition of "bad faith" renders the invalidation procedure for bad faith trademarks ineffective. It was underlined that the cancellation, opposition and invalidation procedures for trademarks are protracted and expensive. In Türkiye, there is no regulation regarding the Additional Protection Certificate14 for patents
The Commission also highlighted the absence of an effective system for the protection of undisclosed test and other data generated during the authorization process for obtaining market approval for pharmaceutical and agrochemical products. According to the Commission, Türkiye's data protection regime, which has been in place since 2005, is limited and does not cover biological and combination products. In addition, the period of protection envisaged is also limited. According to Turkish law, the duration of patent protection correlates with the length of regulatory data protection; therefore, data protection is automatically lost upon expiry of the patent term.
The most emphasized issue in the Report is the enforcement of intellectual and industrial property rights. It is stated that in the case of commercial-scale IP violations, criminal courts hardly ever issue deterrent fines despite the existence of higher penalties in legislation. Right holders consider judicial processes, including courts of appeal, to be insufficient. There are difficulties and inconsistencies in the adjudication of claims for preliminary injunctions and monetary compensation claims. Right holders have stated that they experience various problems, including financial burdens in the storage and destruction of counterfeit goods. Furthermore, right holders also complain about the overuse of expert opinions.
Despite strong evidence presented by right holders, very few search and seizure warrants are issued and very few counterfeit goods are seized.
Public prosecutors and judges reportedly demand unreasonable additional evidence from right holders to substantiate claims. Preliminary injunctions are difficult to obtain, and the penalties imposed by the judicial authorities have minimal deterrent effect. Law enforcement officials, including police officers and judges, must increase the efficacy of the measures employed against IPR infringements.
The Commission reports that in recent years the number of IP courts in Türkiye has decreased, which has had a negative impact on the quality and consistency of court decisions. Measures to combat counterfeiting in physical marketplaces remain insufficient. New provisions on the notice and takedown procedure were introduced through Law No. 6563 on the Regulation of Electronic Commerce, which also clarified the liability of intermediary service providers and electronic commerce service providers for complaints regarding infringement of intellectual and industrial property rights.
However, stressing that there has been an increase in the sale of counterfeit goods on recognized electronic commerce marketplaces, the Commission emphasizes the importance for Türkiye to implement notice and takedown procedures with an aim to prevent IPR infringements.
The number of customs applications for seizure increased from 2,431 in 2021 to 2,637 in 2022. However, to combat counterfeit goods, it is stated that Türkiye needs to improve its customs practices for transit and export goods. Türkiye is the second largest source country that supplies the counterfeit goods entering the EU15, and customs officials at EU borders are seizing an increasing amount of Turkish goods. Counterfeit goods concern a wide range of products, including food and alcoholic beverages, vehicle accessories and spare parts. Customs legislation in Türkiye is still not fully aligned with the EU.
According to the Commission, awareness campaigns organized by public authorities on the threats counterfeiting and piracy pose to public health, consumer safety, the rule of law, the labor market and the economic benefits generated by IPR-intensive sectors are insufficient and limited. To protect IPRs and prevent the flow of counterfeit goods from Türkiye into the EU, there has to be a stronger political commitment from both sides.
C. Conclusion and Evaluations
In connection with the findings mentioned above, the Commission concludes that Türkiye should pay close attention to the following:
- Improving enforcement measures to effectively combat infringements of intellectual and industrial property rights, including online sales of counterfeit and pirated goods; increasing the level of expertise in IP courts and addressing procedural difficulties in obtaining search and seizure orders
- Enhancing cooperation with IPR holders, particularly for accelerated and simplified disposal procedures
- Ensuring collection and processing of accurate statistical data, especially regarding judicial processes, to facilitate the analysis of systematic deficiencies
The findings of the Report are based on the conclusion that Türkiye is in a good position in terms of legislative compliance. However, further progress should be made to ensure proper enforcement of rights. The fact that Türkiye is the second largest source after China in terms of the number of counterfeit goods entering the EU causes the Commission to devote a considerable portion of the IPR-related parts of its annual reports to the deficiencies regarding enforcement. In addition, it is important to note that the recommendations in the Report are the same as in 2022, as no progress has been made compared with the previous report.
However, there are some differences between the findings in the 2022 Report and the findings in the 2023 Report. Whereas last year the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic were emphasized, this year there is no mention of COVID-19 at all. From this, it can be inferred that the Commission considers the effects of the pandemic on intellectual and industrial property rights to have completely or largely disappeared.
The 2022 finding of legal uncertainty regarding well-known trademarks has been reinforced in this year's Report by the absence of a definition of bad faith. Accordingly, could it be said that the uncertainty regarding the legal status of applications for well-known trademarks has come to an end? On the other hand, it is unclear what the Commission means by the lack of a precise definition of bad faith since there is no clear definition of bad faith in the EU Trademark Regulation. Yet, a statutory definition of bad faith may cause various difficulties, as the evaluation of bad faith may differ according to the circumstances and conditions in a case. In any case, bad faith is a concept whose boundaries should be clarified through case law.
The previous report's finding that the public legitimization of counterfeiting and piracy stems from the deep-rooted belief that these are petty crimes, but that these crimes are mostly committed by organized criminal networks, was not included in the 2023 Report. Furthermore, it is unclear what specific scientific facts the first finding in the 2022 Report is based on. Finally, the 2023 Report does not mention the transfer of the authority regarding trademark cancellation to the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office as of 10 January 2024 and the consequences of this situation. It is anticipated that the Commission will discuss this matter in its report to be published in 2024.
Overall, compared with many other chapters, Türkiye has made significant progress in the intellectual property law chapter. Implementation of the Commission's recommendations, particularly on rights enforcement, will enable Türkiye to conclude the chapter on IP legislation soon.
03 An Overview of the Infringement Threat to Intellectual Property Rights Posed by 3D Printing Technology
What is three-dimensional printing technology?
Three-dimensional (3D) printing technology is a term that emerged in the late 1980s and is used to cover fast, cheap and quick prototyping, production or reproduction technologies. The 3D printing process starts with the object or objects to be printed being formatted into a digital file using a software or printer with 3D printing technology. This digital file is then transferred to a printer with specialized software that converts the model contained in the digital file into a 3D object in physical form by combining layers of melted raw material.
Many products created using 3D printing technology have traditionally been produced by separating large quantities of raw materials into smaller pieces then reassembling them. Now, thanks to 3D printing technology, production is more cost-effective, practical and efficient than ever before.
With today's 3D printers, it has become possible to use a wide range of raw materials, from plastics to ceramics, metals to mixed materials. This widening of the range of materials used in the production process positively affects many sectors and brings unique opportunities for innovation and novelty. As 3D printers are now less costly, and with production yields and profit margins reaching into the billions, 3D printers are being preferred even for domestic use. This opportunity may lead to an increase in intellectual property infringements and make it more difficult to detect and control these infringements.
3D printing technology and intellectual property rights
The development of 3D printing technology has led to the production of printers with this technology in more compact and portable sizes, thus becoming more widespread and preferred for individual use even in homes. Although it is a field that requires technical and specialized requirements, 3D printing technology is frequently preferred because it provides ease of production and practicality in many different fields.
Although 3D printing technology makes production less costly, faster and more practical both on an individual and sectoral level, these same practical benefits reveal the necessity to examine the threats that this technology may pose to intellectual property rights. In fact, 3D printing technology may be used in the production of a product, invention, work or form protected by a patent, utility model, copyright or design right. This technology also paves the way for the easy execution of production processes that may lead to the violation of intellectual property rights.
Realizing the threat of infringement posed by 3D printing technology, various right holders have started to develop certain methods to prevent their products from being produced by third parties through this technology. For example, a foreign-based security company marks its products with plant DNA to prevent the unauthorized production of these products by third parties using 3D printing technology. Similarly, another foreign-based company explained that by placing a chemically treated fingerprint component under the surface of the product, it can prevent original products from being counterfeited using 3D printing technology.
Although it can be said that right holders tend to take various measures to prevent third parties from using 3D printing technology in a way that infringes their intellectual property rights, it is not possible for every right holder to actively take these measures, as these measures usually require sophisticated engineering work and investment. On the other hand, the widespread use of 3D printing technology, which brings with it a less costly, more practical and more compact production method, paves the way for malicious attempts by third parties. Moreover, in the face of the high acceleration of 3D printing technology, it is inevitable that the measures developed by right holders with high costs and diligent efforts will become ineffective at some point
Therefore, it can be expected that the threats and acts of infringement of intellectual property rights through the use of 3D printing technology will be an ongoing phenomenon in our lives. In our law, there is no specific regulation that envisages the infringement of intellectual property rights through the use of 3D printing technology to produce a product, invention, work or form that is protected by a patent, utility model, copyright or design right. Currently, if intellectual property rights are infringed by using 3D printing technology, the regulations set forth in the Industrial Property Law No. 6769 ("IPL") and the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works No. 5846 ("FSEK") will be applicable.
Although the general regulations in the IP Law and the IPL will be applicable to acts of infringement of intellectual property rights through the use of 3D printing technology, taking action against infringement may bring along certain difficulties. In this context, the first and most important difficulty that right holders may face is identifying the person/organization that infringes intellectual property rights by using 3D printing technology.
If the infringing party is a relatively large manufacturer or a company with a legal personality, it will be easier for the right holder to identify the relevant party and take legal action. However, as 3D printing technology has become less costly, more practical and compact models of 3D printers have made it more accessible to individuals for domestic use.
Therefore, it may become very difficult to determine the identity of the infringer, especially if the infringer is a real person or merchant with a 3D printer purchased for domestic use. In this case, determining the identity of the infringer may be very costly and will require time and effort. Moreover, given that the number of real persons who make products using 3D printing technology is increasing day by day, it will not be practically possible for the right holder to identify and track down each infringer.
This difficulty, which is very likely to be encountered by right holders in identifying persons/organizations that produce in a way that constitutes infringement of their intellectual property rights, brings with it another legal problem. If the infringing person/organization cannot be identified, it is also controversial whether the right holders can take legal action against third parties who contribute to the infringement, although they cannot commit the infringement themselves. For example, if a product belonging to a patent right holder is produced by a third party using 3D printing technology, the manufacturers of the printer and the suppliers of 3D printing cartridges — even though they do not directly take part in the creation of the product that constitutes infringement of the patent right — indirectly participate in the act that constitutes infringement of the patent right. Although the basis of liability may differ according to the characteristics of the case, in general, it cannot be said that the manufacturers of the printers and cartridges used in the creation of the product that constitutes infringement of the patent right will incur legal liability solely on the grounds that the devices they developed have been used by third parties in production that constitutes infringement of the patent right. In fact, these manufacturers are more likely to be held free from liability before the courts on the grounds that the devices they produce are technical and basic devices that serve a lawful interest and purpose. Therefore, it will not be possible for the relevant right holder to successfully take legal action against the parties who indirectly contribute to the infringing act, except in circumstances that may be specific to the case.
The development and prevalence of 3D printing technology has accelerated in light of current developments, but when it comes to infringements of intellectual property rights arising from the use of this technology, it is still considerably difficult for right holders to benefit from effective legal protection.
Conclusion
3D printing technology is developing day by day and has become an indispensable tool for more practical, quick and cost-effective production. Addressing the relationship between 3D printing technology and intellectual property rights is important to better delineate the limits of possible legal actions that the right holder may take in the event that third parties produce materials subject to intellectual property rights using this technology.
To summarize, while there are some strategic moves that intellectual property right holders can take to strengthen their position in the face of infringement threats in the age of 3D printing technology, the legal effectiveness of these strategic moves will inevitably require either new rules or different interpretations of existing rules.
04 Turkish Patent and Trademark Office ("TPTO") Published the Application Data Related to 2023
Application data for the year 2023 was recently announced by the TPTO. Cities with the most geographical indication applications in 2023 and their statistics were also announced.
Hatay filed 52 geographical indication applications, being the city with the highest number of geographical indication applications. Hatay was followed by by the cities Çorum, Diyarbakır, Çankırı and Karaman.
In 2023, 316 geographical indication applications were made. In terms of regions, the Black Sea Region was the first region with 162 applications, followed by 111 applications from Central Anatolia and 84 applications from the Aegean Region.
Again this year, Ezine Cheese, one of the distinguished flavors of Çanakkale, was registered in the EU and became our 18th geographical indication. Ezine Cheese is now the first Turkish cheese to be registered in the EU. The application for designation of origin registration of Ezine Cheese has been published in the European Union Official Journal dated 16 August 2023 and numbered 2023/C 287/07 (available here) and the approval of the European Commission dated 7 December 2023 is available here.
The EU registration process of 45 geographical indications registered in in Türkiye is ongoing. The EU has previously awarded PDO and PGI (protected geographical indication) status to other product names from Türkiye:
Antep Baklavası / Gaziantep Baklavası (Gaziantep Baklava), Aydın Kestanesi (Aydin Chestnut), Aydın İnciri (Aydin Fig), Bayramiç Beyazı (Bayramiç White, Malatya Kayısısı ("Malatya Apricot"), Milas Zeytinyağı ("Milas Olive Oil"), Taşköprü Sarımsağı (Taşköprü Garlic), Giresun Tombul Fındığı (Giresun Fat Hazelnut), Antakya Künefesi (Antakya Künefesi), Suruç Narı (Suruç Pomegranate), Çağlayancerit Cevizi (Caglayancerit Walnut), Gemlik Zeytini (Gemlik Olive), Edremit Zeytinyağı (Edremit Olive Oil), Milas Yağlı Zeytini (Milas Oil Olive), Ayaş Domatesi (Ayaş Tomato), Edremit Körfezi Yeşil Çizik Zeytini (Edremit Gulf Green Scratch Olive) and Maraş Tarhanası (Maraş Tarhana).
Protected geographical indications ensure the transmission of local wealth from generation to generation by preserving the desired quality and also enabling people from different cultures to experience each other's customs in the most authentic form. The geographical indication emblem, which emphasizes the protection of the quality and authenticity of the product, also offers consumers the opportunity to open the door to another cultural region.
Turkish geographical indications, which are currently registered in the EU, both guarantee the origin of the distinguished products produced in the territory of Türkiye also within the EU borders and ensure that European consumers are aware that they have access to a product made by traditional methods and products are protected from counterfeit.
Footnotes
1. Article 297 of the CCP - "Scope of the Judgment" (1) The judgment shall be delivered "in the name of the Turkish Nation" and shall include the following after this phrase: a) The names and surnames and registration numbers of the court, the judge or judges and the clerk of the court who issued the judgment, and if the court acts in various capacities, the capacity in which the judgment was issued. b) The identities of the parties and the participants in the case, their Turkish Republic identification numbers, the names, surnames and addresses of their legal representatives and attorneys, if any. c) Summary of the claims and defenses of the parties, the issues they agree and disagree on, the evidence collected on the disputed facts, the discussion and evaluation of the evidence, the facts established, and the conclusions and legal grounds derived therefrom. ç) The result of the judgment, the trial expenses and the refund of the unspent portion of the advance payment received from the parties, legal remedies and duration, if any. d) The date of the judgment and the signatures of the judge or judges and the clerk. e) The date of the reasoned decision. (2) In the concluding part of the judgment, without repeating any words belonging to the reasoning, the judgment rendered on each of the claims, the obligations imposed on the parties and the rights granted to the parties must be indicated explicitly, clearly and unambiguously under a sequence number.
2. Article 141 of the Turkish Constitution - "Publicity of hearings and the necessity of justification for verdicts" Court hearings shall be open to the public. It may be decided to conduct all or a part of a hearing in a closed session, but only in cases where absolutely necessitated by public morals or public security. Special provisions regarding the trial of minors shall be laid down in the law. The decisions of all courts shall be written with a justification. It is the duty of the judiciary to conclude trials as quickly as possible and at minimum cost
3. Article 194 of the CEB - "Adjournment of Civil Actions" Except in cases of urgency, civil actions in which the bankrupt party is a plaintiff or defendant shall be suspended and may only be continued 10 days after the second meeting of creditors. This provision shall not apply to lawsuits for damages arising out of infringement of honor and dignity, damages for bodily harm, disputes concerning marriage, personal affairs or alimony, and civil lawsuits filed in connection with proceedings by way of foreclosure of pledges. The statute of limitations and limitation periods do not run while the case is pending.
7. https://neighbourhood-enlargement.ec.europa.eu/turkiye-report-2023_en.
8. E.g., Trademark Regulation: Regulation 2017/1001 of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark.
9. E.g., Directive on the Protection of Computer Programs: Directive 2009/24/EC of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs.
10. 2022 Türkiye Report: https://www.ab.gov.tr/ilerleme-raporlari_46224.html.
11. The 2022 Türkiye Report stated that "limited progress" had been made.
12. The amendment mentioned in the Report is the amendment made to Article 72 of the FSEK by Article 1 of Law No. 7346 on the Amendment of Certain Laws, published in the official gazette dated 25 December 2021. Article 72 of the FSEK reads as follows: Neutralizing technological measures: Article 72: To neutralize the effective technological measures provided by the application of protection methods, such as access control or encryption or reproduction control mechanisms to control the use of works, performances, phonograms, productions and broadcasts in order to protect the rights set forth in this Law: a) those who manufacture or import, distribute, sell, lease or hold the products and tools for commercial purposes; and b) providers of advertising, marketing, design or implementation services for products and vehicles shall be punished with imprisonment from six months to two years.
13. Directive 2019/790 of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC.
14. The Supplementary Protection Certificate is a sui generis IPR under EU law. This right applies to certain pharmaceutical and plant protection products authorized by regulatory authorities in the EU and aims to compensate for the loss of patent term protection due to mandatory testing and clinical trials in the authorization process of pharmaceutical and plant protection products that extend the scope of patent protection. For more information, see: https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/industry/strategy/intellectual-property/patent-protection-eu/supplementary-protection-certificates-pharmaceutical-and-plant-protection-products_en.
15. See also: 2021 Report on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in the EU, December 2022. https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/news/eu-enforcement-ip-rights-joint-report-european-commission-2022-12-16_en.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.