386 / 521
applicable not only during the export and import of goods, but also
during transit. Various Court of Cassation decisions establish that this
precaution shall be enforced upon goods that are subject to transit
2
.
Actually, confiscation by customs may prevent the entire trade of
pirated goods.
The customs administration, without the necessity of any kind of
court decision or jurisdictional process, and, most importantly, without
losing time, may confiscate goods that are considered to breach, or in
fact breach, IP rights, and will notify the right holder to realize the nec-
essary below-stated process.
There are two methods used under which goods that breach the
rights of the right holder may be confiscated. The first method is
through an application by the right holder or its representative, the
license holder or its representative. The protection time requested in
this application may be a maximum of one year. The right holder
applies to the customs administration with the technical and detailed
definition of the goods, all kinds of information that may shed light on
the piracy, the contact details, and the documents proving the rights of
the applicant, and its Turkish registration, and demands that the goods,
which pass through customs without the knowledge of the right hold-
er, be confiscated.
The customs administration controls the goods according to the
accepted applications, confiscates the goods that are in breach, notifies
the right holder the following work day, and keeps the goods for 3
work days, if the goods are subject to fast deterioration; otherwise, for
10 work days.
The second method is that the customs administration, in the
absence of an application, by its own initiative, may confiscate goods
if there is clear evidence that shows that the goods are pirated, and that
they breach IP rights. The administration keeps the goods for 3 work
days to grant the necessary time to the right holder to be able to make
the below-stated applications.
370
NEWSLETTER 2014
2
Decisions of the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, dated 13.6.2013 and numbered
2011/9321 E. 2013/12394 K.; dated 13.2.2004 and numbered 2003/13968 E. 2004/1201 K.;
dated 1.4.2004 and numbered 2003/8321E. 2004/3406 K. may be given as example in the rele-
vant matter.