Türkiye continues to face significant challenges related to intellectual property (IP) protection and enforcement. Despite improvements in its IP framework, issues such as counterfeiting, piracy, and inadequate enforcement mechanisms remain substantial. This analysis integrates findings from several key  reports, including the 2024 Special 301 Report by the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), the 2024 EU Türkiye Report, and insights from the International Anticounterfeiting Coalition (IACC), to provide a comprehensive overview of Türkiye’s current IP landscape.

I. Türkiye's IP and Innovation Performance Based on International Rankings

Türkiye’s progress in IP and innovation has been evaluated through several prominent international indices, reflecting its ongoing efforts to enhance its IP framework. 

A. International IP Index 2024:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce's 12th edition of the International IP Index evaluated the IP frameworks of 55 global economies across 50 unique indicators. In this comprehensive assessment, Türkiye secured the 28th position with an overall score of 51.04%.

B. International Property Rights Index 2024:

According to the International Property Rights Index, Türkiye’s score slightly increased to 4.3, ranking it 21st in the Central Eastern Europe and Central Asia region and 92nd globally. This index evaluates countries based on legal and political environments, physical property rights, and intellectual property rights.

C. Global Innovation Index 2024:

The World Intellectual Property Organization’s (WIPO) Global Innovation Index 2024 ranked Türkiye 37th among 133 economies. Notably, Türkiye ranked 3rd among 34 upper-middle-income group economies and 4th among 18 economies in the Northern Africa and Western Asia region. 

D. Comparison with Previous Year (2023):

Türkiye's consistent improvement in both the Global Innovation Index demonstrates a positive trend towards enhancing its IP framework and innovation ecosystem. 

II. Problems in IP Protection Based on International Reports 

A. USTR Special 301 Report (2024):

Türkiye remains on the Watch List due to various deficiencies in its IP protection system. Issues highlighted include:

These problems emphasize the need for a transparent, predictable, and fair regulatory framework to attract foreign investment and enhance innovation in the pharmaceutical sector.

B. International Anticounterfeiting Coalition (IACC) Observations (2024):

The IACC has expressed concerns about the continued presence of counterfeit products in Türkiye, despite intensified raids by law enforcement.

The IACC findings reveal the limitations of enforcement efforts. Enhanced coordination between law enforcement agencies, stricter penalties, and strategies to reduce consumer demand for counterfeit products are essential.

C. The EU Report (2024):

The EU’s perspective stresses the importance of aligning Türkiye’s IP enforcement with international standards to enhance trade relations and strengthen IP protection.

The European Commission’s report highlights areas where Türkiye's IP framework requires improvement:

III. Evaluations Based on International Reports

A. Piracy and Counterfeiting

Türkiye remains a major source and transit point for counterfeit products, including clothing and pharmaceuticals.  Türkiye’s young and dynamic population continues to play a pivotal role in shaping the country's consumer market. As of 2024, Türkiye's population has reached approximately 85.66 million, with individuals aged 15-24 making up around 16.7% of the population. This youthful demographic presents a promising consumer base for both authentic and counterfeit goods. Türkiye plays a significant role in the global landscape of counterfeiting and online piracy. 

Counterfeiting & Online Piracy Activities based on much global research:

As shown in the pie chart, Türkiye ranks as the third-largest source of infringing goods entering the EU market, following China and Hong Kong, accounting for over 8% of the total volume according to EU border suspensions.

These statistics demonstrate the need for enhanced enforcement measures and international collaboration to combat counterfeiting and piracy effectively.

Online piracy is widespread, driven by high consumer demand for pirated content. Notably, Istanbul’s Tahtakale District remains a hub for counterfeit goods. The presence of a thriving black market reflects the complexity of enforcement, where financial motives and consumer demand continue to challenge regulatory mechanisms.

Similar to consumer trends observed in several European countries, many Turkish consumers justify the purchase of counterfeit goods due to the high costs of authentic products. The idea that "if it looks the same, why pay more?" is a prevailing mindset. Moreover, the perception that buying fake goods does not carry serious ethical or legal consequences further fuels the demand. Yet, there is a glimmer of hope. The same demographic that is most attracted to counterfeit products, the 18-35 age group, also shows the most potential for change. With effective awareness campaigns highlighting the harmful effects of counterfeit goods, this group can become more conscious of the importance of supporting IP rights.

B. Enforcement Deficiencies:

Based on international reports, it is important to note that Türkiye has a good level of legislation mostly aligned with the EU legislation to fight more efficiently against counterfeiting activities. It is believed that the bad-reputation of Türkiye in terms of counterfeiting and piracy is connected to deficiencies in implementation and enforcement of IPR legislation such as difficulties in obtaining search and seizure decision or notice and take-down process.

C. The Economic and Social Impact

The widespread acceptance and consumption of counterfeit goods have far-reaching consequences:

IV. Combating Counterfeit Products: Legislative and Practical Challenges in Türkiye

As a strategic hub between Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, Türkiye plays a crucial role in combating counterfeit goods. Despite legislative measures, numerous challenges persist in practice, limiting the effectiveness of enforcement.

Key Challenges:

A. Geographical and Strategic Challenges

Türkiye’s position as a strategic bridge between Europe, Asia, and the Middle East makes it a critical transit and distribution hub for global trade. With over 170 customs checkpoints operating across land, sea, and air routes, customs authorities are on the frontline of the fight against counterfeiting. Key entry points—such as İstanbul Airport, Mersin Port, İzmir Alsancak Port, Kapıkule Land Border, and Habur Border Gate—play a particularly vital role due to their geographic and commercial significance:

İstanbul Airport is Türkiye’s busiest international air cargo hub, handling high volumes of express shipments and e-commerce parcels destined for Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa. It is a frequent entry point for small, high-value counterfeit goods such as luxury accessories, electronics, and pharmaceuticals.

Mersin Port, located on the Mediterranean coast, is one of Türkiye’s largest container terminals and a key maritime gateway for imports from Asia, particularly China. It also facilitates trade with North African countries and the Eastern Mediterranean region, making it a high-risk port for counterfeit consumer goods.

İzmir Alsancak Port is a major shipping terminal serving Western Türkiye. It is a crucial point for goods entering from Southern Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean. The port has seen frequent counterfeit seizures, particularly in textiles, footwear, and spare parts.

Kapıkule Land Border, on the Bulgarian border, is one of the busiest land crossings into the European Union. It’s a primary route for trucks transporting goods from Türkiye into Central and Western Europe—often exploited by counterfeiters moving fakes into EU markets under cover of legitimate trade.

Habur Border Gate, situated on the southeastern border with Iraq, is a critical trade link to the Middle East. Given the large volume of informal and commercial trade across this route, it is particularly vulnerable to the movement of counterfeit goods—especially construction materials, electronics, and auto parts.

Customs enforcement is essential to intercept these illicit products at the border before they circulate through domestic or international markets. Yet, customs units face considerable challenges, including resource constraints, high cargo volumes, and the increasing sophistication of smuggling techniques.

B. Customs Challenges

• i. Customs Control Inefficiencies

Customs processes are often overwhelmed by small parcel shipments that disguise counterfeit goods as personal items or samples. According to the report titled “Misuse of Small Parcels for Trade in Counterfeit Goods” by the OECD and EUIPO, an analysis of data from 2011-2013 revealed that 63% of customs seizures involved small parcels.

The fact that shipments containing small parcels are often transported together with packages belonging to multiple senders with similar or identical packaging makes it difficult to identify potential counterfeit products within these shipments. Despite this challenge, the high percentage of seizures involving small parcels demonstrates the significant role that small shipments play in the trafficking of counterfeit goods.

To address this issue, it is essential to strengthen the inspection of shipments involving small parcels. Additionally, counterfeit goods are frequently shipped under the pretext of being "gifts," "samples," or "for personal use," which helps them evade customs inspections. Aligning simplified destruction procedures with European Union practices would also help expedite customs processes, making enforcement efforts more efficient and effective.

• ii. Simplified Destruction Procedures:

According to the Turkish legislation, in the event that both parties agree to the destruction of the seized goods by customs officers by filing a petition within three or 10 days of the seizure of the goods, a simple destruction procedure can be applied without a court order.

As seen, Turkish customs’ simplified destruction procedure isn’t aligned with EU regulations, forcing rights holders and infringers to agree within a limited timeframe or risk losing this option.

Therefore, in practice, right holders in Türkiye tend to avoid the simplified destruction option due to several challenges. Reaching the counterparties and securing an agreement on destruction is notably difficult, and even when an agreement is achieved, it must be finalized within a strict timeframe of 10 working days. Moreover, even if these conditions are successfully met, the products are often not destroyed through the application of Customs, making this entire process less efficient and impractical.

C. Legal and Regulatory Challenges

• i. Inconsistencies in Judicial Decisions

Despite clear legislative provisions allowing for search and seizure warrants upon reasonable suspicion, the practical application of these measures varies widely across judicial districts in Türkiye. In major cities, only specific judges handle counterfeit-related cases, often leading to inconsistencies and case backlogs.

• For example, in 2024, 74 enforcement actions were undertaken to protect intellectual property rights for worldwide leading electronic company, but only 33 resulted in raids, while 41 were limited to identifications due to judicial challenges.

Due to the limited number of judges handling these cases and ordering search and seizure warrants, files accumulate, causing district security directorates to struggle with implementing judgments. As a result, companies are often advised to submit fewer applications to avoid overloading the system.

The prevailing tendancy of the Criminal Judges leans towards rejecting search and seizure requests even the reasonable doubt is present.These decision can be appealded, however, they are reviewed by another judge next judge of equal rank,  often reluctant to overturn a colleague’s decision, weakening the appeal process.

 In this regard, we are of the view that the fight against counterfeiting would be more effectively advanced if objections to search and seizure decisions were once again evaluated by the Criminal Courts of Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights, as was the practice in the past. Specialized judicial review would help ensure a more consistent and informed approach to enforcement in IP-related cases.

• ii. Difficulties in Presenting Evidence for Search and Seizure Requests

One of the significant challenges in combating counterfeit production is the difficulty in presenting sufficient evidence to obtain search and seizure orders. Particularly concerning underground or unauthorized manufacturers, authorities often require evidence such as invoices, receipts, or notary reports to proceed with enforcement actions. This requirement creates substantial obstacles in identifying and taking action against illegal producers.

In the practice we believe that the concept of 'reasonable suspicion' should not be interpreted narrowly; rather, a broader approach should be adopted, taking into account the specific circumstances of each case.

• iii. Limitations on Ex Officio Operations by Law Enforcement

Another significant challenge in combating counterfeit goods is the inability of law enforcement to act ex officio except for products that pose a direct health risk. For other counterfeit goods, enforcement actions can only be initiated if a complaint is filed by the right holder and an official decision is issued. This procedural requirement significantly slows down the process and reduces the overall effectiveness of enforcement operations.

For an efficient fight against counterfeiting, it is obvious that the police forces should have a more proactive role in all counterfeiting issues according to the legislation and to foster a strong collaboration among all stakeholders is crucial. 

• iv. Storage Capacity Issues of Treasury Warehouses

Another critical issue concerning the enforcement process is the limited storage capacity of treasury warehouses. According to regulations, goods seized during raids must be stored in treasury warehouses. However, due to inadequate capacity, seized products are often transferred to independent trustees instead. Given the prolonged duration of criminal investigations and court proceedings, right holders are frequently burdened with substantial storage costs. This financial strain discourages some right holders from taking action against counterfeiters, thereby undermining their constitutional right to seek legal protection.

To address this issue, it is essential to ensure the effective implementation of Article 163 of the IP Code which regulates the fast destruction. The article advocates the efficient application of fast destruction procedures to prevent counterfeit goods from being unnecessarily stored for extended periods. Such a mechanism would enhance circulation within treasury warehouses and significantly reduce storage costs, thereby facilitating a more effective enforcement system.

• v. Recommendations for Improvement

Türkiye’s progress in IP protection and innovation is evident from its improved rankings in various global indices. However, persistent issues related to enforcement, piracy, and counterfeiting continue to undermine its IP regime. Enhanced coordination among enforcement agencies, stricter penalties, and alignment with international standards are crucial to ensure a robust and effective IP protection framework.

Conclusion

Türkiye’s efforts to enhance its intellectual property protection framework have shown gradual progress, particularly in its alignment with EU legislation and improvements in innovation outputs. However, significant challenges remain, especially in enforcement, judicial consistency, and practical implementation of existing laws.

The persistent presence of counterfeit goods in Türkiye’s markets, along with its strategic position as a major transit hub for counterfeit products entering the EU, underscores the need for more robust and efficient enforcement mechanisms. Strengthening coordination between law enforcement agencies, enhancing judicial specialization, and implementing fast-track destruction protocols are critical steps that must be taken to address these issues effectively.

Furthermore, fostering greater awareness among consumers, improving collaboration with international organizations, and adopting technological solutions for better monitoring and identification of counterfeit goods are essential strategies for building a stronger intellectual property framework.

Moving forward, Türkiye must continue improving its IP enforcement landscape to attract foreign investment, protect brand owners, and create a fairer and more transparent market environment. By implementing these measures, Türkiye can strengthen its position as a reliable trade partner and enhance its reputation for protecting intellectual property rights.

Below are the official links to the relevant reports that provide comprehensive data on Türkiye’s intellectual property (IP) and innovation performance:

A. International IP Index (2024 & 2023):

• 2024 Report: https://www.uschamber.com/intellectual-property/2024-ip-index
• 2023 Report: https://www.uschamber.com/intellectual-property/2023-international-ip-index

B. International Property Rights Index (2024 & 2023):

• 2024 Report: International Property Rights Index 2024
• 2023 Report: International Property Rights Index 2023

C. Global Innovation Index (2024 & 2023):

• 2024 Report: Global Innovation Index 2024
• 2023 Report: Global Innovation Index 2023

D. World Trademark Review – Türkiye (Anti-Counterfeiting):

• World Trademark Review – Türkiye (Anti-Counterfeiting)

E. USTR Special 301 Report 2024:

• Special 301 Report 2024

F. EU Türkiye Report 2024:

• Türkiye Report 2024

Co Authors:

N. Serra Coral

Burcum Evgin

Melis Karadeniz