Right holders and consumers encountering the sale of counterfeit goods on Instagram and social media possess the right to file a criminal complaint with the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, obtain notary-certified determination of evidence, request access blocking orders, and initiate actions for damages. Legal proceedings pursued against these violations may be conducted concurrently before criminal and civil courts, as the act constitutes both trademark infringement and the crime of fraud. Although internal reporting buttons provided by social platforms serve as a practical preliminary measure, permanently halting counterfeit trade remains achievable solely through the execution of official legal mechanisms.
What is the legal character of counterfeit sales on social media?
The sale of counterfeit or imitation goods via social media constitutes trademark infringement in Turkish law, as well as unfair competition and acts of aggravated fraud. Pursuant to the Industrial Property Code No. 6769 (IPC), the unauthorized commercial use of a registered trademark, as well as the manufacturing, offering for sale, or selling of goods imitating such sign, constitutes an explicit criminal offense and statutory breach. Furthermore, displaying imagery of an authentic product while delivering a counterfeit or entirely disparate worthless item constitutes the offense of fraud committed through the use of information systems under Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 (TPC).
Intellectual property rights arise upon registration, and such registration grants the proprietor an exclusive sphere of protection. The provisions of the IPC strictly prohibit the use of signs indistinguishably similar to a registered trademark as profile names, user handles, hashtags, or promotional elements across social media platforms. E-commerce legislation also operates in instances of such unlawful acts. The concealment by vendors of identifying details and tax certificates required under Law No. 6563 on the Regulation of Electronic Commerce entails administrative monetary fines and platform-based closure sanctions.
What legal steps must be pursued against counterfeit sales?
The initial step to be undertaken against accounts selling counterfeit goods on social media is to execute an evidentiary determination so that the profile and the products offered for sale acquire legally valid evidential status. Because digital content deletion or account deactivation can occur within seconds, timestamps, screenshots, and URLs of relevant web pages must be formally recorded via a notary utilizing the electronic determination (e-tespit) system. Once evidence is legally secured, registered trademark owners may petition the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office seeking the issuance and enforcement of search and seizure measures.
During the preliminary investigation, digital forensics are conducted via the prosecution service to identify the identity and address data of the vendor. An indictment is then issued to initiate criminal proceedings against the identified suspects. Concurrently, right holders submit notifications to the respective social network provider requesting page removal on grounds of copyright or trademark infringement. Professional supervision of these legal processes prevents forfeiture of rights; indeed, Attorney-Mediator Billur Güler Aslım emphasizes that the evidentiary collection stage constitutes the absolute cornerstone of any subsequent lawsuit for the protection of property rights.
Determination of evidence and search and seizure orders
In criminal procedure, search and seizure orders represent the most critical stage, ensuring that counterfeit goods stored or dispatched from physical addresses of the suspect are transferred into judicial custody. Pursuant to Article 30 of the IPC, law enforcement authorities may execute a raid upon the suspect’s premises under directives of the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office or by court order. Products seized following such operations are placed into custody for subsequent judicial destruction. Where the physical address remains unknown, the physical location of the suspect is ascertained through postal tracking codes, bank transaction records, or IBAN disclosures.
Vendors operating on social networks frequently utilize third-party bank accounts to obscure identity. In such cases, account holders may also be joined into the criminal investigation as accomplices or aiders and abetters. The Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office obtains the genuine identity and residence of the perpetrator by subpoenaing logs of IP addresses utilized by the vendor from the relevant internet access providers.
What penalties apply to sellers of counterfeit products?
Imprisonment and judicial monetary fines are imposed on natural persons who produce or sell counterfeit products in infringement of registered trademark rights. Under Article 30 of the IPC, any person who manufactures goods, renders services, offers for sale, or sells products through copying or causing likelihood of confusion with another party’s trademark right faces imprisonment from one to three years and a judicial fine of up to twenty thousand days. Where the offense is committed within the framework of a commercial organization or as a successive offense, the statutory penalty enhancement provisions are triggered.
If the act escalates to the threshold of aggravated fraud aimed at deceiving consumers, the provisions of the TPC apply. Pursuant to Article 158 of the TPC, a sentence of imprisonment from three to ten years is prescribed for perpetrators committing fraud through the instrument of information systems, banks, or credit institutions. For the crime of fraud, a judicial fine not less than twice the unlawful benefit generated from the offense is likewise mandated. Upon conviction, the court orders the confiscation to the public and subsequent destruction of the counterfeit goods.
What legal remedies are available to aggrieved consumers?
A consumer who purchases a counterfeit item on social media under the representation of authenticity retains the right both to file a criminal complaint with the public prosecution and to demand a restitutionary refund. Pursuant to Law No. 6502 on the Protection of Consumers, a consumer delivered defective goods possesses the right to rescind the contract and demand a full refund, request replacement with non-defective equivalents, or claim a proportionate price reduction. If the merchant fails to execute an institutional return process, the consumer must apply to the Consumer Arbitration Committee or the Consumer Court, depending on the statutory monetary value of the dispute.
Jurisdictional monetary thresholds for submissions to Consumer Arbitration Committees are adjusted annually by the Ministry of Trade; consequently, applicable pecuniary limits must be verified prior to filing. The consumer must append bank receipts, postal delivery reports, and social media communications as documentary evidence to the application. Where the vendor deliberately defrauded the consumer by collecting funds without dispatching the goods or by dispatching an entirely unrelated item, a direct complaint for aggravated fraud must be lodged with the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office.
A concrete dispute illustration
A local manufacturer holding a registered leather goods trademark in Antalya identified that its proprietary logo and designs were being counterfeited and sold across a popular social media platform. The suspect account replicated the manufacturer’s original catalog imagery and advertised sales at one-third of market value, employing the representation “authentic export-surplus merchandise” within the profile. The manufacturer immediately obtained an electronic determination via a notary, recording the profile’s publications, follower lists, and order telephone numbers.
Subsequently, a criminal complaint was filed with the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office; the prosecution tracked shipping parcel codes to identify the packaging warehouse of the suspect and secured a search and seizure warrant. During the operation, hundreds of counterfeit leather jackets and bags were seized and impounded, and criminal proceedings were initiated against the suspect under IPC provisions. The proprietary manufacturer concurrently instituted an action for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages before the Civil Court for Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights, seeking reparation for commercial reputational harm.
What damages are recoverable in compensation lawsuits?
A proprietor whose trademark rights have been infringed may claim actual damages as well as lost profits from natural persons or legal entities engaged in the distribution of counterfeit goods. Under the IPC, lost profits are calculated based on one of three statutory methods elected by the claimant: the probable income the right holder would have generated absent the unfair competition of the infringer, the net profit derived by the infringer, or the theoretical licensing fee the infringer would have paid had the trademark been utilized lawfully under a license agreement. Court-appointed expert witnesses audit the vendor’s bank records and logistics dispatches to compute the quantum of unlawful profits.
Alongside pecuniary damages, moral damages may be sought for harm inflicted upon the commercial reputation of the mark. Furthermore, the plaintiff may petition the court for the announcement of the final judgment in a widely circulated newspaper or via online media, with all publication costs assessed against the defendant. Because initial filing fees, power of attorney stamp duties, and expert fee advances vary pursuant to statutory schedules, the official tariff in force at the filing date must be consulted.
What are the common procedural errors made in counterfeit litigation?
The principal error committed by right holders and consumers in this process is contacting the vendor directly on social media to confront them or expose the page before securing an evidentiary determination. In such cases, the vendor account immediately deactivates the page, alters the username, or erases communication history to spoil or conceal evidence. The secondary prevalent error is relying exclusively on social media reporting mechanisms without applying to judicial authorities; these platforms may suspend the profile, but cannot prevent the vendor from resuming illicit operations via a newly registered handle.
In regions such as Antalya, characterized by intensive tourism and local trademark production, marketing counterfeit inventory through integrated models across physical storefronts and social media channels compounds procedural complexity. Erroneous designation of the competent court or applicable statutory provisions causes dismissal on procedural grounds or prolonged jurisdictional venue battles. Strict time management remains vital to avoid missing statutory opposition deadlines and to ensure that courier dispatch logs are formally subpoenaed by the prosecution prior to data expunction.
Counterfeit trade conducted over social media does not solely defraud individual consumers; it directly damages the commercial standing and market share of registered trademarks. The swift execution of search and seizure mechanisms within criminal proceedings, combined with the rigorous utilization of compensation remedies in civil courts, functions as the essential deterrent force against these digital violations. To avoid the statutory forfeiture of rights, consumers and right holders must fully secure evidence and submit formal claims to legal authorities within the prescribed statutes of limitation.
