1. Introduction

In today’s globalized economy, brands and products cross borders with ease, making parallel trade a growing reality. Parallel trade refers to the import or export of genuine products by parties other than the trademark owner’s authorized distributors or dealers.

As emphasized, the products in question are genuine—not counterfeit. If a product is counterfeit, it falls under counterfeit enforcement and is not considered parallel trade. However, when genuine products are sold outside of the authorized distribution network, this can trigger significant legal issues, especially in the field of intellectual property.

Sellers and consumers are often drawn to parallel trade due to its potential to enhance market competition and reduce prices. Nonetheless, it can also pose significant risks, such as:

• Disruption in warranty and after-sales services,
• Deviation from brand-controlled quality standards,
• Lack of regulatory compliance or oversight.

These risks can adversely affect both consumers and brand owners. In Turkey, parallel trade is governed by the Intellectual and Industrial Property Code No. 6769 (“IPC”) under the principle of international exhaustion. 

2. When Is Parallel Trade Permissible Under Turkish IP Law?

Turkey follows the international exhaustion principle within its IP law framework. According to this principle, once a product is lawfully placed on the market anywhere in the world with the trademark owner's consent, the right to control its resale is largely exhausted.

To benefit from this legal protection, two key criteria must be satisfied:

1. The products must have been legally placed on the market.
2. The products must have been placed on the market by the trademark owner or with their explicit consent.

If both conditions are satisfied, the resale of the product is not considered trademark infringement under Article 152 of the IPC.

However, the second paragraph of the same article states that even if these two conditions are met, parallel trade can still be restricted in certain exceptional situations. According to Article 152/2 IPC, if the product has been “altered” or “degraded” in the course of commercial use, the trademark owner has the right to prevent its sale under the IPC and the unfair competition rules of Turkish Commercial Code (“TCC”).

Since the exceptions to parallel trade may vary on a case-by-case basis, the legislator has not listed them under a “numerus clausus” principle. In other words, the exceptions to parallel trade are not limited to the matters specified in IPC Article 152/2 but allow trademark owners to take legal action based on the circumstances of each case.

Sample exceptions may be as below:

→ Article 152/2 - Alteration or Degradation of the Product

As per Article 152/2 of the IPC, one of the most robust legal grounds for restricting parallel trade is when genuine products are altered or degraded in a way that could harm their performance or consumer perception.

Examples:

• Diminished durability, quality, or functionality of the product,
• Modifications that may adversely impact consumer experience.

→ Repackaging or Modification of Packaging

Unauthorized repackaging, relabeling, or modification of original packaging can constitute trademark infringement. 

→ Removal or Modification of Packaging Devices or Security Features

If security elements of products such as holograms, QR codes, seals, or tamper-evident packaging are removed or replaced, this may prevent the ability to track of the authenticity. Trademark owners are entitled to take legal action if such modifications occur without their approval.

→ Unauthorized Labeling or Use of Additional Marks

The addition of unauthorized labels, warranty claims, or misleading promotional material can mislead consumers and harm the brand’s reputation. Such conduct is typically deemed an infringement of the trademark owner's rights.

Examples:

• Adding extra barcodes or labels without the original brand owner’s consent,
• Using misleading advertisements or false information,
• Providing additional warranty details beyond those offered by the original manufacturer.

→ Distribution of Defective or Expired Products

Parallel imports may sometimes include expired, defective, or damaged products. These can endanger consumer safety and severely tarnish the brand’s image. Legal measures may be taken in such cases to prevent further distribution.

→ Non-Compliance with Local Laws and Regulatory Requirements

All products sold in Turkey must comply with national regulatory rules. Products that lack of those may be lawfully challenged by brand owners.

Examples:

• Absence of a mandatory Turkish user manual,
• Missing required documents such as CE certificates, import certificates, or warranty papers,
• Product content that does not comply with Turkish health and safety standards.

→ Misleading Representation as an Authorized Distributor Despite Selling Parallel Imported Products 

Misleading marketing that suggests affiliation with the brand owner—such as claiming to be an “official distributor” or using the brand's corporate identity—can constitute deceptive commercial practice and damage the brand's reputation.

Examples:

• Unauthorized use of terms such as “official seller” or “authorized dealer,”
• Deceptive advertising using the brand’s logo or corporate identity,
• Claiming to offer warranty or technical support without being an authorized seller.

3. Conclusion

While Turkey applies the principle of international exhaustion, trademark owners still retain strong legal tools to protect their trademarks against parallel imports in certain circumstances.  Legal action may be taken against such products if they fall within specific exceptions—most notably under Article 152/2 of the IPC. This provision allows trademark owners to intervene when genuine products have been altered, degraded, or otherwise handled in a way that affects their integrity, compliance, or consumer perception.

In practice, trademark holders may encounter such products either on the domestic market or, more frequently, during customs procedures. According to Article 57 of the Turkish Customs Law, customs authorities are authorized to suspend the release of products that infringe intellectual property rights. Although parallel imports do not necessarily involve counterfeit products, it is common for genuine products to be subject to customs suspension. In such cases, if the right holder manages to a preliminary injunction decision based on relevant legal exceptions, trade of these products may be permanently restricted.

This makes it all the more crucial for customs authorities to adopt a clear and nuanced understanding of the exception to the exhaustion principle, particularly when it comes to the classification of “genuine” products in the context of parallel trade.

Co Authors:

Okan Çan

Emir Ersan