Parallel Imports into Turkey: Genuine Goods, Trademark Exhaustion and Product Changes

Genuine branded goods imported outside the official distribution network are not automatically counterfeit goods. Article 152 of Industrial Property Code No. 6769 excludes acts concerning protected products from the industrial property right after those products have been put on the market by the right holder or with its permission. For trademarks, the same article preserves the owner’s right to prevent commercial use of goods that third parties have altered or deteriorated.

Have a general question about this article? Ask anonymously

For a foreign supplier, Turkish parallel importer or exclusive distributor, the legal assessment therefore begins with the actual goods and the authorised first marketing. The existence of a registered trademark is only part of the analysis. This guide explains exhaustion, supply-chain evidence, product alterations and the distinction between trademark permission and compliance with customs, product-safety and consumer obligations.

Read the import right together with the exhaustion rule

Article 7(3)(c) of Code No. 6769 identifies import and export of goods bearing the sign among the acts that can be prohibited where the statutory conditions apply. Article 152 then limits the right for products already marketed by the owner or with its permission. Quoting only the import provision gives an incomplete account of the law.

The wording of Article 152(1) does not confine the relevant first marketing to Turkey. For a cross-border supply chain, the inquiry is therefore not answered simply by saying that the goods first entered commerce abroad. The identity of the goods, the owner’s permission and the subsequent condition and use of the products remain central.

Exhaustion concerns the particular products put on the market. It is not a general licence to manufacture additional units bearing the mark. An importer cannot use genuine stock as a legal basis for producing an extra batch or applying the brand to unrelated goods. The permission associated with circulation of existing products must be distinguished from a licence to create new branded products.

Authenticity and authorised marketing are different factual questions

A product can appear authentic without the importer having established how it entered the market. Article 152 refers to marketing by the right holder or with permission. The evidence should therefore address both identity and the authorised commercial release, rather than rely only on a visual inspection or a supplier’s one-line assurance.

Identify the manufacturer, the relevant brand owner and the person that first marketed the particular goods. A factory’s involvement does not automatically establish authority for every unit leaving the premises. Production overruns, samples and goods subject to a disputed release require examination of the actual permission and transaction history, not an assumption based on the factory’s name.

The ownership of the goods and exhaustion of the trademark right are also distinct. A buyer may have a commercial invoice but still need evidence connecting the products to an authorised market release. Conversely, the absence of a direct purchase from the brand owner does not itself establish that the goods are counterfeit or that exhaustion is unavailable.

Preserve original invoices, delivery records, batch or serial identifiers and relevant supply agreements. The objective is a traceable chain for the disputed stock. A certificate describing the supplier’s business in general may not prove the origin of the particular shipment being challenged.

What an exclusive distribution agreement does not establish by itself

An agreement giving one distributor exclusive commercial rights in Turkey should not be treated as conclusive proof that every independent resale infringes the trademark. The owner’s statutory right and the parties’ contractual obligations are separate legal relationships. Article 152 must still be assessed for the actual goods.

The agreement can matter to claims between the contracting parties, including the permission under which goods were supplied and any alleged breach. However, the contractual dispute must not be silently converted into a universal trademark prohibition against every third-party buyer. Identify who is bound by the contract and what statutory right is asserted against the importer.

Likewise, a parallel importer should not assume that exhaustion resolves every possible claim arising from its conduct. Misleading representations, altered goods, confidential-information misuse or other unlawful acts require their own legal analysis. The conclusion that a particular trademark right is exhausted is not immunity from all commercial law.

For a licence rather than an ordinary distribution arrangement, examine the actual licensed acts and the identity of the licensee. Our licensee enforcement guide explains the separate question of who can sue. Exclusive distribution, exclusive licensing and registered ownership must not be used as interchangeable labels.

Article 152(2): altered or deteriorated goods

Article 152(2) preserves the trademark owner’s ability to prevent commercial use of products within paragraph 1 where third parties have changed or worsened them. The product’s condition after first marketing therefore matters. An exhaustion assessment based solely on the original factory release can miss later events in the supply chain.

Record repackaging, repairs, replacement components, software or configuration changes, relabelling and storage damage where relevant to the goods. These factual categories do not all produce an identical legal result. The analysis must explain whether and how the particular activity engages the statutory alteration or deterioration rule.

Do not describe every change to a shipping carton as automatically unlawful, or every refurbishment as automatically protected by exhaustion. Distinguish the product, its branded presentation, the information supplied to purchasers and the effect of the intervention. Preserve before-and-after records instead of asking the court to infer the entire history from the final packaging.

Where goods are sold as new, repaired, refurbished or used, the description should match their actual condition. The trademark analysis and the accuracy of the customer information are related but distinct. A supplier’s contractual promise that all goods are original does not eliminate the need to investigate a documented alteration.

Use of the brand in advertising is a separate question

Reselling genuine goods does not make an independent trader the brand owner’s official representative. Website descriptions, shop signs and customer communications should not claim an authorised relationship that does not exist. Exhaustion of rights in the physical products should not be confused with permission to present the importer’s business as the trademark owner’s own operation.

Article 7(5) contains limits on the owner’s ability to prohibit specified good-faith and commercially honest uses, including necessary referential use to indicate a product’s intended purpose in the stated circumstances. The exact use, its necessity and presentation require assessment. The provision is not a blanket licence to copy every brand image or make any affiliation claim.

Separate a product description from domain-name registration, account ownership and use of copyrighted photographs. A trademark exhaustion argument does not automatically supply rights in third-party marketing images. Use materials for which the business has the necessary permission and avoid treating a supplier’s catalogue as a free source of all content.

Our trademark registration guide explains the underlying right, while the clearance guide addresses identifying relevant registrations. A search result should be followed by analysis of the particular conduct rather than a conclusion based only on the presence of a familiar brand name.

Customs release and trademark exhaustion are not the same clearance

Article 152 is an industrial-property provision. It does not state that customs valuation, import restrictions, product safety, labelling, tax or consumer obligations disappear when the goods are genuine. The importer must identify the separate rules applicable to the product category and transaction.

A customs declaration should therefore match the goods and the actual transaction. A successful trademark argument does not justify inaccurate origin, value or product descriptions. Where royalties or licence payments are involved, the customs valuation guide addresses a separate issue that must not be answered by the exhaustion rule alone.

Likewise, release of goods by customs should not be presented as a final court judgment resolving every trademark dispute. The type of control performed and the decision actually made matter. Preserve the customs notices, supporting documents and any court orders so that the legal team can distinguish a border procedure from a merits determination.

Where a shipment is detained, identify the stated legal basis and the actual notification date promptly. This guide does not supply a universal response deadline for every border action. The applicable customs procedure, documents and any judicial order must be reviewed rather than borrowing a deadline from an unrelated infringement case.

Prepare evidence before stock is mixed or resold

Keep the disputed shipment identifiable. Batch numbers, serial numbers, warehouse intake records and sales records can connect the source evidence to the units actually sold. Mixing stock from several suppliers without traceability can make a genuine-goods defence harder to demonstrate for particular products.

Preserve samples through lawful and documented arrangements where a technical authenticity or condition assessment is needed. Record who supplied the sample and how it relates to the shipment. A sample purchased later from a different supplier may not establish the condition of the earlier consignment.

Retain correspondence concerning consent, territorial supply restrictions and the reasons a supplier says the goods were authorised. Do not alter or reconstruct documents to create a cleaner chain. Later explanations should be identified as explanations and connected to authentic source records.

Commercial confidentiality can be addressed through an appropriate legal process and secure document exchange. It is not a reason to provide invented invoices or conceal adverse records. The relevant question is how to prove the actual supply chain while protecting unrelated sensitive information, not how to replace evidence with a general assertion of authenticity.

Responding to a warning without overstating either side

The right holder should identify the trademark, the goods and the conduct alleged to exceed exhaustion, including any lack of authorised first marketing or subsequent alteration. The importer should respond with product-specific evidence rather than merely state that parallel imports are always lawful. Neither position is established solely by the existence of an exclusive distributor.

A warning letter, a filed lawsuit and an interim order have different legal effects. Article 159 governs requests for interim industrial-property measures under its conditions. The fact that a party threatens seizure does not mean an order has been granted, and a pending request should not be reported as a final prohibition.

The resulting decision file should state whether authorised marketing is established, whether the goods changed, how the brand is being used and which non-IP import requirements remain. A carefully bounded conclusion is more useful than the absolute statements that all genuine imports are unrestricted or that only the official distributor can lawfully sell.

Official legal sources

Primary provisions: Industrial Property Code No. 6769, Articles 7, 24, 152 and 159. Official legislation links are available in the TÜRKPATENT legislation directory. This English explanation is not an official translation or product-specific customs, safety or trademark clearance.

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.