Using Someone Else's Trademark Online Led to TRY 110,000 Damages Award
The Bakırköy 1st IP Court found that a company's unauthorized use of a competitor's trademark on its website for door and baseboard products constituted infringement, awarding TRY 110,000 in damages under Article 151/2-b of the IP Code after applying a 50% equitable reduction.
Case Summary: The defendant company used the plaintiff's registered trademark on its website in connection with door and baseboard products. The court found infringement and awarded TRY 110,000 in damages, applying a 50% equitable reduction to the defendant's net profit figure.
Background
The plaintiff discovered that the defendant was using the dominant element of its registered trademark on its commercial website — as a site logo and within product pages — in connection with goods (doors and baseboards) covered by the plaintiff's trademark registrations. The defendant held no registered trademark of its own.
Court's Analysis
Finding of Infringement
Under Articles 29/1-b and 29/1-c of the Turkish IP Code (SMK No. 6769), using a registered mark or a confusingly similar sign without the owner's consent constitutes trademark infringement. The court relied on expert reports and archived website snapshots (archive.org) to establish that the infringing use had occurred even after the defendant took down the relevant pages.
Damages Calculation and 50% Reduction
The court applied Article 151/2-b, which allows the rights holder to claim the infringer's net profit. The expert calculated TRY 220,000 assuming all of the defendant's revenue was attributable to the plaintiff's mark. The court applied a 50% equitable reduction under Article 151/3 — taking into account the economic significance of the IP right, the nature and scope of the infringement, and the mark's actual contribution to consumer choice — arriving at a final award of TRY 110,000.
Key Legal Principles
- Online trademark use targeting goods within the registered class constitutes infringement under Article 29 SMK, even if the website is later taken down.
- Under Article 151/2-b, courts must assess the mark's economic contribution, the duration and scope of the infringement, and may apply an equitable reduction under Article 151/3.
- The defendant's shared trade name element does not negate the infringement finding.
Practical Takeaways for Brand Owners
Document unauthorized online use immediately — screenshots, archive.org snapshots, or notarial records. Archived evidence is admissible even after the infringing site is modified or removed. A registered trademark is required to claim damages under Article 151/2-b.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I sue if the defendant has already taken down the infringing website?
Yes. In this case, the court relied on archive.org records to establish the infringement. Removing the content does not undo the past violation.
Is the 50% equitable reduction mandatory?
No — it is within the court's discretion. Courts consider the mark's economic significance, the duration and extent of the infringement, and other factors under Article 151/3.
Legal Notice: This article is a summary and commentary on a published court decision and does not constitute legal advice. Party and trademark names have been omitted for confidentiality. Please consult a qualified trademark attorney for advice on your specific situation.
Suspect trademark infringement? Get expert legal support today.
WhatsApp Us Free initial consultationBakırköy 1st Court of Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights, Case No. E. 2023/42, Decision No. K. 2024/242, 28.11.2024
Party names and trademark details are omitted for confidentiality.