TURKEY Law and Practice Contributed by: Caghan Tansel, TANSEL
intermediary integration and cross-border proof- of-concept studies may influence how the market designs wallets, identity layers, settlement systems and programmable-money interfaces. This may not immediately liberalise private crypto use cases, but it is likely to shape regulatory expectations for future digital-money infrastructure. Finally, market consolidation is likely. Higher capital requirements, custody obligations, AML costs and technology standards will make it harder for lightly capitalised platforms to remain competitive. The next 12 months are therefore likely to favour operators that can combine user demand with institutional-grade compliance, local custody readiness, strong cyber- security and transparent governance. How Harmoniously Has Blockchain Business Interacted With Existing Laws and Approaches in Relation to Intellectual Property? The interaction has been workable, but not seamless. Türkiye has not needed a separate blockchain-specific IP code for most disputes because ordinary copyright, trade mark, design, unfair competition, contract and personality-rights rules can generally be applied to blockchain-based assets. The main Turkish copyright statute remains Law No 5846 on Intellectual and Artis- tic Works. Trade mark protection is governed by the Industrial Property Code No 6769 and administered through the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office. For NFTs and tokenised creative assets, the most important legal point is that ownership of a token does not automatically mean ownership of the underlying copyright, trade mark, design or personality right. In practice, an NFT purchaser usually acquires control over the token and whatever contractual rights are attached to it; any transfer or licence of underlying IP rights should be expressly documented. This has encouraged more sophisticated drafting of NFT terms, marketplace terms of service, creator royalty provi- sions and licence conditions. Turkish courts and IP authorities have shown that existing legal tools can respond to NFT-related dis- putes. In one notable NFT-related preliminary injunc- tion decision concerning the unauthorised use of a portrait in NFT format, the court ordered blocking of
access to the relevant platforms in Türkiye and pre- vention of the sale of the NFT on OpenSea. The deci- sion is significant because it treated the NFT format as capable of being addressed through existing infringe- ment and interim relief mechanisms, even though it did not create a comprehensive NFT doctrine. Trade mark practice is also adapting. The Turk- ish Patent and Trademark Office has received trade mark applications covering NFTs, and commentary on recent practice indicates that virtual and online goods or services may, depending on the case, be considered similar to physical goods or services under existing trade mark principles. The remaining friction points are practical rather than conceptual. Blockchain records are useful evidence of timestamps, provenance and transaction history, but they do not by themselves cure defects in authorship, chain of title or contractual transfer. Smart contracts can automate royalties or access rights, but they do not override mandatory IP law, consumer law or contract-law requirements. Pseudonymous wallets, cross-border marketplaces and immutable metadata can also make enforcement more difficult, especially where the infringer, platform, server or wallet operator is outside Türkiye. Overall, blockchain business has interacted reason- ably harmoniously with Turkish IP law where projects are carefully structured. The safest approach is to treat the token layer and the IP layer as separate but connected: the token should define what is being transferred technically, while the legal documenta- tion should define what is being licensed, assigned, restricted or reserved. 1.1.2 Regulatory Sandbox Türkiye does not have a general regulatory sandbox specifically designed for blockchain-based projects or crypto-asset businesses that would allow firms to test products under regulatory supervision while benefiting from exemptions or no-action relief. CASPs are expected to proceed through the ordinary CMB licensing and compliance framework introduced under the 2025 secondary legislation, rather than through a lighter sandbox route.
656 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook