The course of action to be taken against a seller offering counterfeit goods on marketplaces is, first, to secure evidence via notary-certified systems, subsequently notify the marketplace provider to have the product listing removed, and simultaneously apply to judicial authorities. Trademark or right holders whose intellectual property rights have been infringed may file a criminal complaint before the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, as well as institute lawsuits seeking preliminary injunctions and damages before the civil courts. The sale of counterfeit goods on marketplaces constitutes a grave infringement that tarnishes the reputation of the registered trademark, deceives consumers, and violates the principles of commercial honesty.

Which rights are infringed by the sale of counterfeit goods on marketplaces?

The sale of counterfeit goods on marketplaces directly infringes registered trademark rights, unfair competition provisions, and consumer rights. This act constitutes an explicit infringement of registered trademark or design rights under the Industrial Property Code No. 6769 (IPC). It simultaneously generates unfair competition pursuant to the provisions of the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 (TCC), as it constitutes an act contrary to the principle of good faith that misleads competitors or customers.

Trademark infringement, under Article 29 of the IPC, is the unauthorized commercial use of a registered trademark for identical or indistinguishably similar goods and services. Counterfeit cosmetics, apparel, spare parts, and electronic components widely observed across marketplaces fall under this scope. A seller engaging in the sale of counterfeit goods infringes upon the trademark owner’s exclusive right of use and dilutes the distinctiveness of the registered sign in the market.

The first legal step to be taken regarding the sale of counterfeit goods is to secure valid preservation of evidence before the seller removes the listing or modifies inventory details. Because internet content can be deleted or altered within seconds, securing evidence in accordance with applicable legislation forms the bedrock of judicial proceedings.

The fundamental steps to be followed by right holders during the evidence collection stage are:

  1. The URL link of the product listing, seller title, MERSIS number, or tax identification details must be recorded in full.
  2. Timestamped screenshots of the relevant web pages must be certified through the e-preservation (e-tespit) system of the Union of Turkish Notaries.
  3. An invoiced test purchase of the suspected infringing product must be made; shipping delivery slips, box labels, the invoice, and the physical product received must be preserved as evidence.
  4. Where necessary, on-site preservation of evidence through an expert witness must be obtained via the court.

Although the marketplace provider is not under an ex officio obligation to investigate whether products offered for sale on the platform are unlawful, it is obliged to remove the content once a duly executed infringement notice has been served. Under Law No. 6563 on the Regulation of Electronic Commerce, intermediary service providers are, as a rule, not held directly liable for content provided by sellers. However, the platform provider must immediately takedown the listing upon being notified of the existence of unlawful content.

In this mechanism, known in practice as the notice-and-takedown system, the right holder or their legal representative serves a warning notice via the relevant marketplace’s intellectual property infringement notification portal or through a notary public. The trademark registration certificate, evidence demonstrating the infringement, and the listing URL of the counterfeit product are explicitly presented in the notice. If the marketplace provider fails to remove the unlawful listing within a reasonable period upon receiving the notification, it becomes jointly and severally liable for damages alongside the seller.

What lawsuits can be filed against a seller offering counterfeit goods?

Against a seller offering counterfeit goods, both civil actions before intellectual property courts and criminal proceedings by lodging a criminal complaint with the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office can be initiated. Right holders may pursue these two judicial avenues independently or simultaneously, depending on their objectives.

The principal types of actions that can be instituted before civil courts are:

  • Action for determination and cessation of infringement: A declaration that the sale of counterfeit goods constitutes trademark infringement and the termination of the ongoing act are demanded.
  • Action for removal of infringement: In order to eliminate the consequences of the infringement, the seizure and destruction of counterfeit goods, packaging materials, and instruments used in production are requested.
  • Action for material and moral damages: The right holder may claim actual damages suffered due to the infringement and lost profits pursuant to Article 151 of the IPC (calculated based on the infringer’s net profit or a hypothetical licensing fee). Moral damages may also be claimed due to the impairment of the trademark’s commercial reputation.
  • Request for preliminary injunction: In order to prevent the aggravation of damages throughout the proceedings, an urgent injunction may be obtained to halt the customs clearance, warehouse dispatch, or sale of the products on platforms.

On the criminal front, pursuant to Article 30 of the IPC, anyone who produces goods, provides services, offers for sale, or sells goods by infringing another party’s trademark right via imitation or confusing similarity shall be sentenced to imprisonment from one to three years and a judicial fine of up to twenty thousand days. The investigation and prosecution of this offense are subject to complaint; the right holder must lodge a complaint within six months from the date they become aware of the perpetrator and the act.

A concrete dispute scenario for the course of action against a seller offering counterfeit goods on marketplaces

An e-commerce vendor discovers that a patented kitchen robot belonging to its registered brand is offered for sale on a popular marketplace at a price substantially lower than its list price. Rather than messaging the seller directly upon seeing the listing, the right holder immediately records the seller’s storefront page and product URL link via the notary e-preservation system. Subsequently, the right holder places an invoiced order through a separate account, takes delivery of the physical product, and documents via technical inspection that the plastic components are substandard and the barcode has been falsified.

Equipped with the collected evidence, the right holder serves a formal notice to the marketplace provider through a notary public demanding the removal of the listing, whereupon the marketplace removes the listing from the platform. Simultaneously obtaining a preliminary injunction from the competent court, the trademark owner, through a prosecutorial complaint accompanied by law enforcement officers, secures the seizure of the counterfeit goods from the seller’s identified warehouse. Finally, as a result of the filed action for material and moral damages, the seller’s unjust enrichment is calculated via expert reports and collected, and all counterfeit goods are destroyed.

The most common mistake made when collecting evidence is sending a direct message to the seller’s store stating that the product is counterfeit and requesting the listing’s removal. In such cases, the seller immediately deletes the listing, alters the store name, and conceals inventory, thereby destroying legal evidence. Because ordinary, uncertified screenshots are not admitted by courts as conclusive evidence on their own, the burden of proof may result unfavorably for the right holder.

Other critical procedural errors encountered throughout the process include:

  • Missing the statutory complaint deadline: Exceeding the six-month peremptory period for criminal complaints under Article 30 of the IPC extinguishes the possibility of prosecution.
  • Instituting an action before the wrong court: Lawsuits concerning intellectual and industrial property rights must be filed before specialized Civil Courts for Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights; in jurisdictions where such courts have not been established, general Civil Courts of First Instance hear the matter in that capacity. For instance, in legal disputes to be conducted within the judicial boundaries of Antalya, the competent court is the Antalya Civil Court for Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights.
  • Submitting deficient documentation with the notification: When trademark registration certificates, powers of attorney, or concrete evidence of infringement are not provided in marketplace notices, the complaints are not processed by intermediary service providers.
  • Overlooking litigation costs and security deposits: The amounts of security deposits determined by the court in preliminary injunction requests, as well as fixed and proportional judicial fee rates, are updated annually; current fee and tariff schedules must be verified prior to application.

The protection of intellectual property rights on marketplaces necessitates the synchronized execution of technical documentation and legal mechanisms. Taking the correct steps from the very onset of the attack on a registered trademark plays a decisive role in preventing commercial damages that are difficult to remedy. To prevent loss of rights during this process, full compliance with procedural rules must be maintained; indeed, as stated by Attorney Mediator Billur Güler Aslım, notary-certified determinations made without delay in cases of digital trademark infringement are the primary factor determining judicial outcomes. Effective safeguarding of registered rights can be ensured through rapid injunctive reflexes, systematic notification processes, and comprehensive actions for damages instituted before the competent judicial authorities.

Related topics