This is an informal case summary prepared for the purposes of facilitating exchange during the 2026 WIPO IP Judges Forum.
Session 6: Comparative, Referential and Expressive Use of Trademarks
Court of Cassation, 11th Civil Chamber, Türkiye [2025]: Case No. E. 2024/6592, K. 2025/4126 K
Date of judgment: June 16, 2025
Issuing authority: Court of Cassation
Level of the issuing authority: Final Instance
Type of procedure: Judicial (Civil)
Subject matter: Trademarks; Competition
Plaintiff/Appellant: Rıdvan Aklan
Defendant/Respondent: Sikayetvar IT Co. Inc.
Keywords: Referential use; Trademark infringement; Unfair competition; Descriptive/informative use; Indication of purpose; Necessity requirement; Fair use; Host provider liability; Freedom of expression; Consumer review platforms; Honest commercial use
Basic facts: The plaintiff asserted that the defendant operates a website at “www.sikayetvar.com” and opened a dedicated page under the URL “www.sikayetvar.com/akrida-okullari” on this website, thereby using the plaintiff’s registered trademark “Akrida Eğitim Kurumları” and logo without authorization, soliciting complaints regarding the plaintiff, and displaying negative commentary. Consequently, the plaintiff requested the court to rule that the defendant's acts constitute trademark infringement and unfair competition, to issue an injunction to restrain and cease the infringement, to award non-pecuniary damages, and to order the publication of the judgment.
The Court of First Instance dismissed the action. In its reasoning, the Court initially found that complaints regarding the educational institutions operated by the plaintiff under its registered trademark were published on the website with the domain name "www.sikayetvar.com", owned by the defendant. On the other hand, it was established that upon publication of complaints, notifications were dispatched to both paid member and non-member natural and legal persons, and the resolutions concerning these complaints were subsequently published. Moreover, irrespective of membership status, any statements submitted regarding a complaint were included on the website, and under certain circumstances, complaints were removed from publication.
Given that the defendant's website serves as a platform where consumers express positive or negative feedback regarding the goods and services they have purchased, it was concluded that citing the trademarks of the commented-upon companies/enterprises constitutes an imperative necessity by the very nature of such a platform. In this regard, it was held that the website in question could not fulfill its core function without using the trademarks, and that the defendant, acting in its capacity as a hosting provider, was under no duty to investigate the veracity of these complaints. Concluding that the defendant’s use of the plaintiff’s trademark and logo did not fall within the scope of Article 7(2)(a) of the Industrial Property Law No. 6769, the Court ruled that no trademark infringement had occurred.
Furthermore, it was concluded that the circumstances of the case did not give rise to unfair competition. The Regional Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiff's appeal on the merits, holding—in addition to the Court of First Instance's reasoning—that the trademark was not used to distinguish goods or services and that its use in user comments was protected under the right to freedom of expression.
Upon further appeal, the case was referred to the 11th Civil Chamber of the Turkish Court of Cassation. In this regard, the questions referred to the Court of Cassation consist of whether the uses of the plaintiff’s trademark on the defendant’s website constitute trademark infringement, and likewise, whether the defendant’s practices on the website amount to unfair competition.
Held: The 11th Civil Chamber held that the use of the plaintiff's trademark on the relevant website does not amount to trademark infringement. In this regard, the 11th Civil Chamber upheld the reasoning of both the Court of First Instance and the Regional Court of Appeal. On the other hand, it was accepted that the defendant’s practice—whereby trademark owners with paid memberships are notified prior to the publication of complaints and provided with a pre-publication opportunity for resolution, whereas non-member trademark owners are granted this opportunity only post-publication—unfairly compels businesses in the market to become paid members of the defendant’s website. It was held that this circumstance constitutes a practice detrimental to the fair competitive market, which must operate in the interest of all participants. Consequently, ruling that the defendant's conduct constituted unfair competition, the Court of Cassation reversed the judgment of the Court of First Instance.
Relevant holdings in expressive and nominative use of trademark: The decision provides insight into the High Court's approach regarding the use of trademarks in critical comments and on websites featuring product or service complaints.
First, it was acknowledged that the use of a trademark in user comments on online platforms that publish end-users' reviews concerning a trademark falls within the scope of freedom of expression, and that such uses cannot be restricted by trademark proprietors. Second, it was affirmed that the defendant’s publication of complaints and reviews regarding trademarks on dedicated interfaces created for each brand—utilizing the distinctive elements of the respective marks—is necessary to execute the functions performed by the defendant’s website.
Furthermore, it was emphasized that such usage falls under the honest commercial use of a trademark, does not give rise to a likelihood of confusion, lacks any intent to unfairly take advantage of the trademark’s reputation, and does not constitute trademark infringement.
This ruling of the Supreme Court holds significant value in that it establishes that third-party use of another's trademark requires not only necessity, but also compliance with honest commercial practices.
Relevant legislation: Law No. 6769 on Industrial Property (TR199); Articles 7, 8, 29; Turkish Commercial Code (Law No. 6102 of January 13, 2011) (TR104); Articles 54, 55.