Launching a Product in Turkey: Registered and Unregistered Design Protection

A product launch can determine both the availability and the limits of design protection in Turkey. Articles 55–59 of Industrial Property Code No. 6769 distinguish registered designs from unregistered designs, define novelty and individual character, and regulate disclosure. An unregistered design is protected against copying under a narrower statutory rule; it is not simply a free version of a registered design with identical enforcement rights.

Have a general question about this article? Ask anonymously

For an overseas furniture, fashion, packaging or industrial-product business entering Turkey, the important work begins before a trade fair, website release or distributor presentation. The appearance to be protected, the first disclosure, confidentiality arrangements and ownership must be identified. This guide explains the Turkish rules without assuming that a foreign registration or a public launch automatically creates the same rights in Turkey.

Design protection concerns appearance, not every aspect of the product

Article 55(1) of Code No. 6769 defines a design through the appearance of the whole or part of a product or its ornamentation, arising from features such as line, shape, form, colour, material or surface texture. The legal object is therefore the identified appearance, not a broad commercial idea such as a convenient chair or attractive package.

The product definition includes industrially or manually produced objects, complex products and their parts, packaging, presentations of several objects, graphic symbols and typographic characters, while excluding computer programs. The product and the visual features claimed should be described accurately rather than treating every software-related asset as a design registration.

A technical invention requires a separate analysis. Our utility-model guide explains one technical-protection route. A trademark protects a different legal interest, addressed in the Turkish trademark registration guide. One product can raise several legal questions, but one registration does not automatically answer all of them.

Registered and unregistered designs have different foundations

Article 55(4) recognises a registered design where it is registered under the Code and an unregistered design where it is first made available to the public in Turkey. For a foreign brand, the place and timing of first disclosure therefore need deliberate review. A first launch abroad should not be treated as automatically establishing the Turkish unregistered-design route.

Keep a disclosure chronology showing each presentation, sale, publication and online release. Record the actual version shown, the audience and the supporting evidence. A file bearing an old creation date does not establish that the design was publicly disclosed on that date. Creation and disclosure are different legal facts.

A foreign design registration also requires a territorial check. Obtain the record identifying the protection actually effective in Turkey rather than assuming that any international-looking certificate covers every country. This article explains Turkish substantive rules; it does not determine the territorial effect of an unidentified overseas or international filing.

Novelty is assessed against earlier public designs worldwide

Under Article 56(4), a design is new if an identical design was not made available to the public anywhere in the world before the relevant date: application or priority for a registered design, and first public disclosure for an unregistered design. Designs differing only in minor details are treated as identical.

The search should therefore extend beyond Turkish registration records. Earlier catalogues, product launches and other public material can matter. Preserve complete evidence and its date, not just an isolated screenshot with no explanation of where it came from. A later page describing an older product does not automatically prove the exact appearance publicly available at the earlier time.

A commercial redesign should be compared with the earlier appearance rather than judged by a percentage-change rule. The Code does not provide a universal safe harbour for changing a fixed percentage of a product. Small alterations can leave the legally relevant identity or overall impression unchanged.

Individual character depends on overall impression

Article 56(5) asks whether the overall impression on the informed user differs from that produced by an earlier publicly disclosed design. Paragraph 6 requires consideration of the designer’s degree of freedom. This is not simply a checklist counting how many individual details are different.

Identify the relevant product and the visual comparison in a structured way. The analysis should explain which features shape the overall impression and what constraints affect design freedom. A comparison of only a cropped decorative element can be misleading where the asserted design concerns the whole product.

Article 58 likewise connects protection to designs lacking individual character compared with the protected design and requires consideration of design freedom. A registration should not be described as a monopoly over every object serving the same purpose. The protected appearance, the earlier design environment and the disputed product must be examined together.

Disclosure includes more than a formal public announcement

Article 57(1) includes exhibition, marketing through sale, use, description, publication, promotion and comparable activities within public disclosure. A launch team should therefore review trade-fair displays, sales material and digital releases, not only the date of a press release. The evidence must establish the actual content and circumstances of the disclosure relied upon.

The same paragraph states that disclosure to a third person under confidentiality is not public disclosure. A private manufacturing discussion and an unrestricted public presentation therefore require different treatment. Keep the confidentiality agreement, recipient list and material supplied so that the claimed confidential character is supported by the record.

A confidentiality label should match the actual handling of the material. Sending the design to an unrestricted mailing list while calling it confidential creates a factual problem that cannot be solved merely by a filename. Access controls and clear contractual obligations help preserve the distinction, but they do not replace examination of what actually happened.

The twelve-month disclosure exception is not a universal extension

Article 57(2) provides that specified disclosures within twelve months before application or, where claimed, priority do not affect novelty and individual character. It covers disclosure by the designer or successor, by a third person with their permission, or through abuse of the relationship with the designer or successors.

The identity of the discloser and the source of the information therefore matter. The provision should not be described as a blanket twelve-month grace period for every independent third-party design found in the market. Link the disclosure to the statutory category relied upon and preserve evidence of permission or the alleged abuse.

The exception is not a guarantee that all foreign filing systems treat disclosure the same way. A business seeking protection in several countries should coordinate its launch and filing strategy across those territories. This Turkish rule does not itself preserve rights elsewhere or supply a missed foreign priority claim.

Do not wait until the last possible day to determine the chronology. Obtain the actual application and priority information, the earliest relevant disclosure and the design version involved. A legal deadline should not be calculated from a recollection that the product appeared sometime during a particular season.

Unregistered protection requires copying

Article 59(2) limits the unregistered-design owner’s ability to prevent the listed acts to copying of the protected design or a design so similar that it cannot be distinguished in overall impression. This is a material difference from relying on a registered design under the general rule in Article 59(1).

The statute also addresses independent creation by a designer who could not reasonably have known of the earlier public disclosure. Such a design is not treated as copied. Evidence of access, development history and the sequence of product versions can therefore be central to an unregistered-design dispute.

Similarity alone should not be presented as conclusive proof of every required fact. Preserve dated source files, communications with manufacturers, launch materials and the alleged copier’s access where lawfully available. Do not fabricate access evidence or obtain a competitor’s private records through unauthorised means.

For a defendant, contemporaneous independent-development records can be important. A later statement that the designer worked independently is not the same as the actual sketches, instructions and version history. Keep the original records and explain their relationship to the final appearance rather than reconstructing a convenient history after a warning arrives.

Visible components and technical constraints have special rules

Article 56(2) requires a component of a complex product to remain visible during normal use and requires its visible features to satisfy novelty and individual character. Paragraph 3 defines normal use as use by the end user, excluding maintenance, servicing and repair. A hidden component should not be analysed solely from how it appears on a workshop table.

Article 58(4) excludes appearance features dictated by technical function and the specified features necessary for mechanical fitting or connection. Paragraph 5 preserves protection for qualifying modular-system designs under its conditions. The technical context matters, but it does not justify a blanket conclusion that every industrial component is either always protected or always excluded.

Repair parts also have specific rules in Article 59. Their treatment depends on the relevant conditions and should not be inferred simply from the existence of a design registration. A supplier should identify whether the disputed activity concerns original manufacture, repair, compatibility or another use before selecting a legal argument.

Duration, renewal and the practical enforcement file

Article 69 gives registered designs five years from application, renewable in five-year periods up to a total of twenty-five years. Unregistered designs last three years from first public disclosure. The two terms have different starting events and should not be calculated from the date a competitor was discovered.

For registered designs, renewal is requested in the six months before expiry, with the required payment information supplied. Article 69(4) provides a further six-month period after expiry subject to the additional fee. The record should distinguish timely renewal, late renewal and an expired right; an old certificate alone does not establish the current status.

Article 59(1) identifies controlled acts including manufacture, marketing, sale, importation, commercial use, possession for those purposes and offers to contract. A dispute must connect the accused person’s act to the protected design. The distributor, manufacturer and online seller can have different roles, evidence and contractual relationships.

Prepare a file containing the representations, ownership chain, disclosure chronology, registration and renewal record, comparison material and evidence of the challenged acts. Where a licence is involved, the industrial-property licensee enforcement guide explains the separate standing issue under Article 158. A commercial relationship with the owner is not automatically authority to sue.

Article 58(3) preserves any copyright protection available where the conditions of Law No. 5846 are satisfied. That is a separate legal assessment, not an automatic conclusion that every design is also a copyright work. The final enforcement plan should identify the right actually relied upon and the evidence supporting each element.

Official sources

Primary provisions: Industrial Property Code No. 6769, Articles 55–59, 69 and 158. The TÜRKPATENT legislation directory links official legislation and implementing rules. This English explanation is not an official translation or a clearance opinion on an identified product.

Istanbul and Mersin offices

Bakırcı & Keskin Law Office is Mersin-based and works throughout Türkiye with an Istanbul and Mersin focus.

Istanbul — Polaris Plaza

Maslak Ahi Evran Caddesi, Polaris Plaza No:21, Floor 9, 34475 Sarıyer/İstanbul. Istanbul office directions.

Mersin — Profit İş Merkezi

İhsaniye Mahallesi, 4903. Sokak, Profit İş Merkezi No:23, Floor 3, Office 14, 33070 Akdeniz/Mersin. Mersin office directions.

Call +90 552 224 43 66. An enquiry does not establish representation or suspend a legal deadline.