A consumer who purchases a counterfeit product faces no criminal sanctions under Turkish criminal law and industrial property legislation, provided they act for personal use. The applicable legislation does not target individuals acquiring counterfeit or pirated goods solely for their daily personal needs; rather, it aims to penalize those who manufacture, import, distribute, and sell such products. The legal status of a consumer purchasing a counterfeit product is assessed within the framework of the provisions of the Industrial Property Code No. 6769 (IPC) and the Law on the Protection of the Consumer No. 6502 (LPC). Therefore, individuals who acquire counterfeit goods—whether deceived or knowingly—do not stand in the position of perpetrators; depending on the nature of the concrete case, they stand as deceived right holders or parties confronted with defective performance.

Is purchasing a counterfeit product a crime?

Purchasing counterfeit products for personal use does not constitute a criminal offense under Turkish criminal law. Article 30 of the Industrial Property Code No. 6769 (IPC) explicitly regulates the offense of trademark infringement and restricts criminal liability strictly to acts pursuing commercial purposes. Pursuant to the relevant article; criminal penalties apply to persons who manufacture, offer for sale, sell, import, export, or possess for commercial purposes goods by infringing upon another party’s trademark rights through copying or confusing similarity. In this context, copying (iktibas) refers to the verbatim reproduction of a trademark, while confusing similarity (iltibas) denotes establishing a degree of resemblance likely to induce confusion in the mind of an average consumer.

Because no commercial motive exists in the act of an individual purchasing counterfeit shoes or a bag from a market, bazaar, or the internet for personal needs, the material elements of the crime do not materialize. Pursuant to the principle of legality in crimes and punishments—a cornerstone of criminal law—imposing a judicial fine or imprisonment on a consumer for an act not explicitly defined as an offense by statute is legally impossible. In safeguarding intellectual property rights, the legislator targeted commercial actors extracting profit from such infringements, not final end-users.

Conversely, where a consumer orders counterfeit goods in substantial quantities in a single transaction, the legal characterization may change. High-volume purchases establish a strong legal presumption during customs or law enforcement inspections that the goods exceed personal need thresholds and are being imported or held for commercial distribution. In such a scenario, the individual forfeits consumer status and may face status as a suspect or perpetrator of the offense of trademark infringement under the IPC.

What rights does a consumer purchasing a counterfeit product hold?

A consumer sold a counterfeit product under the representation that it was genuine may exercise all optional rights granted by statute, grounded upon the defective goods provisions set forth in the LPC. Defective goods encompass products that fail to bear the qualities stated on their packaging, labeling, or advertisements, breach the contract, or fail to satisfy the reasonable expectations of the consumer. Representing a product as an authentic item of a registered trademark when it is counterfeit constitutes an overt material and legal defect.

Pursuant to Article 8 et seq. of the LPC, a deceived consumer confronted with a defect holds the following optional remedies against the seller:

  1. Rescission of the contract by declaring readiness to return the sold goods, coupled with a demand for a full refund of the price paid,
  2. Retaining the sold goods and demanding a price reduction proportional to the defect,
  3. Demanding free repair of the sold goods at the seller’s exclusive expense, provided it does not entail unreasonable costs,
  4. Demanding replacement of the sold goods with a non-defective equivalent, where practicable.

In counterfeit product disputes, repair or replacement with a non-defective equivalent is practically unfeasible in most instances; repairing a counterfeit item to render it authentic is technically impossible. Similarly, if the seller lacks authentic stock, replacement with an equivalent cannot apply; consequently, the most effective remedy for consumers is rescinding the contract and seeking restitution of the purchase price. Furthermore, if the consumer sustained direct damages due to this deceit, the right to claim compensatory damages under general provisions remains fully reserved.

How is the status of a person knowingly purchasing a counterfeit product evaluated?

A consumer who knowingly purchases a product understanding it is counterfeit—given its price, point of sale, and patent lack of quality—may encounter the defense of the principle of good faith. The principle of good faith codified in Article 2 of the Turkish Civil Code mandates that every person must act in good faith when exercising rights and performing obligations. An individual purchasing a luxury watch of substantial market value at a local street market for a nominal consideration, who subsequently petitions an arbitration committee alleging defective goods on the grounds that “this product turned out to be counterfeit,” may be deemed guilty of an abuse of rights.

Nonetheless, even if the seller knowingly sold a counterfeit item, issuing an invoice or transferring the goods under specific representations does not shield the seller from administrative sanctions. A consumer knowingly purchasing counterfeit goods faces no criminal penalty, as the act remains within the boundaries of personal use. However, because a buyer in this position cannot credibly plead fraudulent deceit by the seller, substantial evidentiary difficulties will arise when asserting the statutory remedies afforded by consumer law.

Which authorities must consumers victimized by counterfeit products petition?

Consumers who sustain legal injury due to counterfeit products must apply to the Consumer Arbitration Committee or file suit before the Consumer Court, depending on the monetary value of the dispute. Determining the competent forum relies on the jurisdictional monetary thresholds promulgated by the Ministry of Trade at the commencement of each calendar year. Verifying current monetary thresholds through official sources prior to application is mandatory for consumers to avoid dismissal of the action or application for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Where the dispute value falls below the statutory threshold, the application must be filed with the provincial or district consumer arbitration committee situated at the consumer’s domicile. Decisions rendered by the arbitration committee possess the force of an enforceable judicial decree (ilam); if the opposing party fails to comply, compulsory execution proceedings (ilamlı icra) may be initiated directly through the enforcement office. For disputes exceeding the monetary threshold, an action must be initiated directly before the Consumer Court; in districts lacking a dedicated consumer court, the civil courts of first instance of general jurisdiction adjudicate the dispute sitting as a consumer court.

In addition to initiating judicial proceedings, where the conduct of the seller involves qualified deceit, criminal and administrative complaint mechanisms may also be pursued:

  • Where the seller disguised counterfeit goods as genuine and issued forged invoices or certificates of authorization, a formal criminal complaint alleging fraud under Articles 157 and 158 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 (TPC) may be lodged with the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office.
  • Where the sale was executed via e-commerce marketplaces, a formal report may be lodged with the platform’s compliance divisions demanding the closure of the merchant’s store.
  • A complaint may be submitted to the Advertising Board operating under the Ministry of Trade regarding unfair commercial practices and misleading representations, ensuring the imposition of administrative fines upon the seller.

Procedural steps and statutory time limits in counterfeit product disputes

Upon taking delivery of a counterfeit product, the primary procedural step entails serving a written notice of defect upon the seller without undue delay following the delivery date. Notice of defect may be served via email, registered mail with return receipt requested, or a formal notary notice. If the seller rejects the refund demand or remains silent, formal dispute resolution proceedings must be commenced.

Prior to petitioning the consumer arbitration committee or filing suit, promotional advertisements, order confirmations, bank receipts, and courier delivery receipts must be compiled as documentary evidence. Pursuant to the LPC, liability for defective goods is generally subject to a two-year prescriptive period running from the delivery date, even if the defect surfaces subsequently. However, where the seller conceals the defect through gross negligence or fraud, the seller cannot benefit from the statute of limitations; given that the sale of counterfeit products inherently involves willful intent, claims may proceed even after the two-year prescriptive period has lapsed.

Proceedings before consumer arbitration committees conclude within an average of a few months. Against the final decision rendered by the arbitration committee, the parties retain the right to file an objection before the Consumer Court within fifteen days from the date of formal service of the decision. Filing an objection with the Consumer Court does not automatically stay execution of the decision; staying execution requires obtaining an interim injunction from the court.

In commercial and tourism hubs such as Antalya characterized by high commercial turnover, cases involving the commercial circulation of counterfeit goods occur frequently. Inspections conducted in markets or boutiques frequented by domestic and foreign buyers regularly reveal vendors evading the issuance of invoices. In this context, preserving payment records and written documentation to discharge the burden of proof directly determines the outcome of litigation in consumer disputes across Antalya.

A concrete scenario illustrating a counterfeit product dispute

An e-commerce vendor lists an item on a popular marketplace platform under the heading “Original and under warranty smartwatch from authorized seller” at a price slightly below market value. Relying on this advertisement, a consumer purchases the item using a credit card. Upon delivery, the consumer observes that the packaging lacks authenticity and presents the device to an authorized technical service provider for verification.

The authorized service issues an official technical report certifying that the serial number is counterfeit and that the hardware is of inferior quality engineered to emulate the registered proprietary software of the trademark holder. Armed with this technical report and the invoice, the consumer petitions the seller seeking a full refund; however, the seller denies the claim, asserting that “returns are not accepted for unsealed goods.”

Thereupon, after verifying that the claim falls within the prevailing monetary thresholds, the consumer lodges an application via the e-Devlet portal with the Consumer Arbitration Committee at their place of residence. The case file incorporates the invoice, screenshots of the seller’s product listing, bank payment confirmation, and the counterfeit verification report issued by the authorized service. Dispensing even with the necessity of an expert witness examination, the Consumer Arbitration Committee rules on the basis of the existing evidence that the product is patently defective, orders the rescission of the sales contract, and directs restitution of the purchase price to the consumer alongside statutory interest.

Common procedural errors committed by victims of counterfeit products

The cardinal error committed by individuals confronted with counterfeit goods is procuring the items through un-invoiced or unrecorded channels, thereby depriving themselves of the ability to substantiate statutory claims. In payments executed via bank transfer (wire/EFT) driven by social media accounts without inserting identifying remarks in the “payment description” field, establishing the nature of the transaction and the legal identity of the seller proves exceptionally difficult.

Other recurring procedural missteps include:

  • Returning the verified counterfeit product to the seller via courier without securing documentary evidence; in this scenario, the seller may receive the goods and allege non-delivery, depriving the consumer of their primary piece of physical evidence.
  • Applying to the arbitration committee relying solely on abstract assertions without procuring a written technical report certifying counterfeit status from an authorized service center or a qualified expert.
  • Initiating litigation before a court lacking subject-matter jurisdiction irrespective of the dispute’s monetary sum, resulting in procedural dismissal and liability for adverse litigation costs.
  • Attempts by the consumer to resell the product online to third parties in an effort to mitigate their financial loss upon learning of its counterfeit nature.

This final point marks an especially critical legal boundary. While a person acquiring counterfeit goods strictly in the capacity of a consumer bears no criminal liability, the moment they attempt to resell that counterfeit property to another individual, they risk assuming the status of a perpetrator of the crime of trademark infringement under Article 30 of the IPC. Consequently, aggrieved parties must exhaust formal legal remedies rather than attempting to dispose of the illicit merchandise.

In balancing the Law on the Protection of the Consumer and the Industrial Property Code, protecting the individual purchaser remains the governing rule, provided that proceedings are conducted in strict compliance with procedural requirements. In resolving disputes, securing documentary evidence, observing statutory defect notification deadlines, and applying to the competent forum prevent the loss of rights. Att. Med. Billur Güler Aslım emphasizes the vital importance of parties exercising their constitutional freedom to seek legal remedies conscientiously within statutory boundaries in consumer and intellectual property disputes. Consumers confronted with counterfeit goods may lawfully recover their damages by asserting the optional remedies granted to them by statute within the prescribed time limits and supported by comprehensive documentation.