OPEN PANEL 2026: Diving into Today’s IP Landscape with INTA

 

 

OPEN PANEL 2026: Diving into Today’s IP Landscape with INTA

featuring Tat-Tienne Louembe & Olha Volotkevych

Tat-Tienne Louembe, INTA’s Chief Representative Officer for the Europe and Intergovernmental Organizations and Olha Volotkevych, Consultant at INTA give young IP practicioners an inspirational update on today’s IP landscape.

 

I first came across International Trademark Association (“INTA”) during my university years and was immediately intrigued. Could you elaborate on INTA’s role and relevance for students and early-stage IP practicioners in Türkiye?

The International Trademark Association (INTA) is a global association of brand owners and intellectual property (IP) professionals committed to elevating the understanding of and respect for IP rights to foster consumer trust, economic growth, and societal transformation. As a not-for-profit association, our role is to serve our members, the profession, and society as a trusted and influential advocate for the economic and social value of brands. Our membership comprises more than 6,600 organizations from 182 jurisdictions. The organizations represent nearly 38,000 professionals, including brand owners from major corporations, small- and medium-sized enterprises, law firms, and nonprofits. Our community also includes government agency members, professors, and law students.

In Türkiye, we have an active network of 65 member organizations (62 associates and 3 corporates). This is 286 individuals in total.

In 2022, INTA appointed Okan Can (Deris) as its 1^st board member from Türkiye. Thanks to the expertise of our members, we work closely with the local authorities and are pleased about the level of cooperation. We have an active MoU with TÜRKPATENT through which we organize regular policy dialogues, trainings and bilateral meetings. In addition, we conduct workshops for judges (the most recent one took place in July 2025).

From May 2-6 INTA will be hosting its Annual Meeting in London at the London Excel Center. Our Annual Meeting programming focuses on brand related issues, critical attention is also directed to governance, data protection, trade secrets, regional regulatory approaches including how to leverage on the implementation of the EU GPAI Code of Practice as an emerging enforcement tool.

The Association also supports lawyers who are starting their careers in IP. Through its dedicated Rising Practitioners Committee, INTA delivers in-person and virtual roundtables and idea exchanges throughout the year, focused on either legal/substantive trademark law or on career/personal development and soft skills. INTA offers an Orientation Session and Reception for First-Time Attendees at the Annual Meeting, and delivers the Tomorrow’s Leader Award, which recognises two outstanding rising practitioners for their early leadership in the IP industry.

 

What do you often see is misunderstood about IP Law?

One common misconception is that trademarks only protect large global brands. In reality, trademarks are essential tools for businesses of all sizes, including startups, SMEs, and individual entrepreneurs, helping them build reputation, distinguish their products and services, and compete effectively in the marketplace.

Another misunderstanding is that trademarks are only about legal protection. In fact, trademarks are also about consumer protection, their health, safety, and trust. They help consumers identify reliable sources of goods and services and prevent confusion in the marketplace. Trademarks also have an important economic dimension: they support fair competition, encourage investment in innovation, and contribute to business growth and job creation across many industries.

 

What are the dangers of counterfeit products and trademark applications that cause a likelihood of confusion risk?

Counterfeit products and trademarks that create a likelihood of confusion undermine the core purpose of trademarks: helping consumers identify the genuine source of goods and services.

In terms of direct harms, counterfeit goods can pose significant consumer health and safety risks, especially in the case of counterfeit baby formula, cosmetics, medicines, and automobile or airplane parts. Beyond these risks to consumers, counterfeiting can also seriously damage the reputation of legitimate brand owners.

From a broader economic perspective, illicit trade diverts revenue from legitimate businesses, reduces tax income for governments, and may negatively affect employment and innovation in brand-driven industries. Studies conducted by the EUIPO and OECD have also highlighted links between illicit trade and organized crime, corruption*, and labor exploitation**, underscoring the wider societal impact of counterfeiting.

Confusingly similar trademarks likewise mislead consumers and distort fair competition by allowing bad-faith actors to from the reputation of established brands.

 

Could you assess the dynamics in the EU within the scope of the economy?

Counterfeiting remains a significant economic challenge in the EU. According to the study Mapping Global Trade in Fakes 2025: Global Trends and Enforcement Challenges, jointly published by the EUIPO and OECD, global trade in counterfeit goods was valued at approximately USD 467 billion in 2021, representing around 2.3% of total global imports. For the EU alone, counterfeit goods were estimated at USD 117 billion, corresponding to roughly 4.7% of total EU imports.

The harmonized EU trademark system administered by the EUIPO has significantly strengthened brand protection across member states. However, the rapid expansion of e-commerce and online marketplaces, combined with the increasing volume of small consignments, has made coordinated enforcement efforts more important than ever.

In response to these challenges, and because consumer and brand protection are at the heart of INTA’s advocacy, in 2023 we adopted the Board Resolution “Establishing a Framework for Protecting Consumers from Third-Party Sales of Counterfeit Goods via Online Marketplaces”. At the same time, public awareness remains a key element of anti-counterfeiting efforts.

In 2012, INTA launched the Unreal Campaign to educate younger audiences about the importance of trademarks and the risks associated with counterfeit goods. To date, the program has directly reached more than 100,000 students in-person across over 68 jurisdictions and recieved millons of views and interactions on social media.

 

What are your assessments and comments on IP Law protection in the new developing innovation world? Do you find the traditional IP Law opportunities for protection and Office policies sufficient?

The rapid pace of technological development, particularly in areas such as AI has significantly reshaped the environment in which IP operates. Traditional IP frameworks remain fundamentally strong and continue to provide effective tools for protecting IP. However, the innovation world is developing faster than many regulatory structures. New business models, digital goods and services, virtual environments, and AI-generated content are raising complex questions regarding authorship, ownership, and the scope of protection. In this context, while the traditional opportunities for protection remain relevant, ongoing adaptation of policies is essential.

 

Are there any recent studies in the EU or in INTA about emerging technologies and IP law protection?

While not always framed as “studies”, INTA regularly publishes policy papers, reports, and Board Resolutions. In 2025, INTA adopted the Board Resolutions “Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Rights Foundational Principles” and “Legislation On Deep Fakes (Digital Replicas)”. The Association has also produced several analytical reports, including “Copyright Developments Concerning NFTs and Metaverses”(2025), “Copyrightability of AI Prompts: A Comparative Analysis of the US and the EU” (2025), “Assessing The Utility of ChatGPT As a Trademark Practice Tool” (2023), and the white paper “Trademarks in the Metaverse” (2023).

Several recent studies address the relationship between emerging technologies and IP protection. For example, the 2026 EPO–EUIPO Joint Study: IP and Innovation in European Sectors examines the relationship between IP protection and innovation in the EU economy. At the policy level, the European Parliament just recently examined “Copyright and Generative Artificial Intelligence – Opportunities and Challenges”, addressing questions related to training data, authorship, and licensing models for AI-generated content.

In addition, the EUIPO published a study “The Development of Generative Artificial Intelligence from a Copyright Perspective” (2025), which analyses how generative AI systems interact with EU copyright law, and “Impact of the Metaverse on Infringement and Enforcement of Intellectual Property” (2024), which analyzes how virtual worlds, Web3 technologies, and immersive environments may create new risks and enforcement challenges for IP rights.

 

As we know, the Nice Classification has been modified for 2026. Can you tell us about the motive and your assessments on the changes for clarity? Should we wait for the official Notification in our countries or directly begin to apply the new classification as announced by WIPO?

Correct. The Nice Classification is reviewed annually to ensure that it reflects developments in technology, commerce, and new types of goods and services. However, the year 2026 is notable because it introduces the new 13th edition, rather than just the usual annual update, and some of the changes reflect discussions with stakeholders from the IP community, including INTA. We have actively contributed proposals and comments during the review process carried out by the WIPO Committee of Experts of the Nice Union, where INTA participates as an observer.

For many years, Class 9, which covers “Electrical and Scientific Apparatus”, has been one of the most heavily used classes in the Nice Classification. This is largely due to the rapid growth of digital and virtual goods, including software, NFTs, and digital representations of physical products. As a result, Class 9 has become increasingly broad, creating practical challenges for trademark examination, clearance, and registration across IP offices.

To address these issues, INTA launched a research project in 2022, with four potential solutions:

• Subdividing Class 9;
• Transferring certain goods to existing classes;
• Creating new classes; and
• Not requiring separate registration for virtual versions of tangible goods.

These proposals were discussed during sessions of the WIPO Committee of Experts and later informed a survey conducted by WIPO’s IB among members of the Nice Union. While no single proposal received unanimous support, transferring certain goods from Class 9 to existing classes emerged as the most practical option. Based on this work, seven areas were identified as potentially fitting better in other classes, including eyewear and vehicles. Following discussions at the last session, the WIPO Committee of Experts agreed on two key changes:

• Eyewear goods (such as spectacles, sunglasses, and contact lenses) were moved from Class 9 to Class 10;
• Emergency and rescue vehicles (such as fire engines and lifeboats) were transferred from Class 9 to Class 12.

Although limited in scope, these changes represent an important step toward reducing congestion in Class 9 and reflect the collaborative efforts of WIPO, member states, and stakeholders such as INTA to keep the classification system aligned with technological and commercial realities.

The new edition of the Nice Classification generally enters into force on January 1 of the relevant year following its publication by the WIPO. While IP offices may begin applying it from that date, many national or regional offices formally announce its adoption through official notifications. Therefore, applicants should check the practice of the relevant office and follow its official guidance before using the updated terminology in filings.

More information on INTA’s involvement in the review of Class 9: https://www.inta.org/news-and-press/inta-news/inta-participates-in-wipos-structural-review-of-class-9/

 

What are some of the gray areas/gaps that create risks to the cross-border protection of well-known trademarks?

First, there is no fully harmonized global standard for determining when a mark qualifies as “well-known”. While the concept is recognized in international instruments, namely, Article 6bis of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and Article 16 of the TRIPS Agreement, with additional guidance provided in the WIPO Joint Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Well-Known Marks, the criteria for recognition and the required level of evidence differ significantly among national IP offices and courts. As a result, a mark considered well known in one jurisdiction may not receive the same recognition in another.

INTA has historically expressed its support for the effective protection and enforcement of well-known marks worldwide. In 2025, INTA adopted the Board Resolution “Updated Framework for Well-Known Marks Protection”, in which we recommend a flexible evaluation of multiple factors, including consumer recognition, global sales, advertising, social-media presence etc.

Second, territoriality remains a core principle of trademark law. Even highly reputed brands may face difficulties enforcing their rights in jurisdictions where they do not yet have local commercial activity or prior registration. Although the concept of well-known marks aims to mitigate this issue, in practice the threshold for proving reputation across borders can be very high. Therefore, in our Board Resolution, INTA emphasizes that domestic use or registration should not be required for recognizing a well-known mark within a jurisdiction.

Third, the treatment of online reputation and digital presence is an increasingly important gap. Today many brands build reputation through global online activity (e-commerce, social media, digital advertising, and online platforms) before entering a market physically. However, some jurisdictions still focus primarily on traditional indicators of local reputation, which may undervalue the significance of cross-border digital visibility.

Recognizing that the digital economy has transformed how brands gain reputation, INTA has recommended modernizing the international guidance on well-known marks, including updating the WIPO Joint Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Well‑Known Marks adopted by WIPO in 1999 (!). The goal is to ensure that the framework better reflects online use, global brand visibility, and modern commercial realities. In this context, INTA regularly speaks during the sessions of the WIPO Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications, where it participates as an observer.

For instance, INTA plans to raise this issue again during the session taking place from March 30 to April 2, in Geneva.

 

*OECD/EUIPO (2025), Mapping Global Trade in Fakes 2025: Global Trends and Enforcement Challenges, Illicit Trade, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/94d3b29f-en

^**OECD/EUIPO (2026), From Fakes to Forced Labour: Evidence of Correlation Between Illicit Trade in Counterfeits and Labour Exploitation, Illicit Trade, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/540dc43e-en

 

Thank you very much Tat-Tienne Louembe and Olha Volotkevych for this inspiring panel!

 

KULLANMAMA NEDENİYLE GÜÇLEN!

 

KULLANMAMA NEDENİYLE GÜÇLEN!

Hepimizin bildiği üzere, 6769 sayılı Sınai Mülkiyet Kanunu, 26. Maddesi ile der ki: “ Markanın, beş yıllık sürenin dolması ile iptal talebinin Kuruma sunulduğu tarih arasında tescil edildiği mal veya hizmetler bakımından ciddi biçimde kullanılmış olması hâlinde, birinci fıkranın (a) bendine ilişkin iptal talepleri reddedilir. İptal talebinde bulunulacağı düşünülerek kullanım gerçekleşmişse talebin Kuruma sunulmasından önceki üç ay içinde gerçekleşen kullanım dikkate alınmaz.”

İkinci el satışlar ile arşiv marka ve amblemler son iki senede gündeme gelmiş durumda. 2025 senesinin başlarında vintage bir Roberto Cavalli gömlek belki annelerimizin kurtulmayı en çok istediği parçayken, milyon dolarlık marka dosyalarında muhtaç hale gelinen kullanım ispatları olabilmekte. Peki durum böyle mi gerçekten...?

Özellikle moda ve tekstil sektöründe arşiv ve bulunması zor ürünlerin sıklıkla gündeme gelmesiyle yeni nesil bloglarda stilistlere karşı bir yeni akım çağrısı gündeme gelmekteydi. İçinde bulunduğumuz dönem itibariyle, SMK 26 hükmü, her marka bakımından mantıklı ve adil midir? Bazı markalar bakımından zaten yenilenmeyen, tamamen ikinci el piyasasına bırakılmış emtialar haline gelmeleri aslında onları güçlendirmez mi? Bazı markaları haiz ürün ve hizmetler zaten bulunamıyor olmaları ve kullanılmamaları nedeniyle arşiv niteliğine güçlü markalar olmaz mı?

SONY GROUP CORPORATION bugün neden “WALKMAN” markasını kullansın? FERRARI S.P.A neden TESTAROSSA markasını kullansın?...

Bugün LC WAIKIKI MAĞAZACILIK HİZMETLERİ TİCARET ANONİM ŞİRKETİ tarafından üretilen ürünlere dair bir talebim yokken bulması zor ve ikonik, bana çocukluğumu hatırlatan “LC Waikiki Maymunu ()” amblemini haiz ürünleri ararken kendimi buldum ve aklımda bu sorular canlandı.

İşte sorularımızın cevabı, geçen yaz alınan bir kararla cevaplandı.

2 Temmuz 2025 tarihinde Ferrari S.P.A, Avrupa Birliği Fikri Mülkiyet Ofisi 5.Daire’sinden alınan kararın iptali için davacı oldu ve “TESTAROSSA” ibaresini haiz markasının korunmasını talep etti. Problem tam olarak, Ferrari’nin TESTAROSSA markasını haiz ürün ve hizmetlerini “aralıksız, yoğun ve ciddi biçimde” kullanmıyor olması noktasında toplanmaktaydı.

Avrupa Birliği Genel Mahkemesi, markanın orijinal köken belirtme fonksiyonunu göz önünde bulundurarak Ferrari’yi haklı buldu, Ferrari tarafından zımni olarak salanan bir kullanma rızasını inceledi ve alışılageldik kullanmama nedeniyle iptal uygulamasını değiştirmiş oldu.

Karar gerekçesinde açıkça belirtildiği üzere; “EUIPO'nun da belirttiği gibi, ikinci el mallara ilişkin ticari marka kullanımının özel bağlamında, sadece marka sahibinin üçüncü bir tarafça markanın kullanıldığından haberdar olması ve buna itiraz etmemesi gerçeğinden, bu tür bir zımni rıza çıkarılamayacağı belirtilmelidir.”  ANCAK;

• Başvuru sahibinin dayandığı itiraz edilen markanın kullanımı, bazıilgisiz üçüncü şahıslar tarafından değil, başvuru sahibinin ekonomik ve sözleşmeye dayalı bağları bulunan yetkili satıcılar ve distribütörler tarafındankullanıldığı sonucu çıkar ve bu durum mevcut davada tartışma konusu değildir
• Bu bağlamda, Genel Mahkeme, ekonomik olarak bağlantılı bir dağıtım şirketi tarafından bir üretim şirketinin markasının kullanılması, marka sahibinin rızası ile bu markanın kullanımı olarak kabul edilebilir ve bu nedenle, 207/2009 sayılı Tüzüğün 15(2) maddesi uyarınca marka sahibi tarafından kullanım olarak kabul edilebilir.
• Bu nedenle, bu sektörde geçerli kabul edilen uygulamalara göre, Ferrari tarafından yetkilendirilmiş bir distribütör veya bayi, söz konusu üreticinin tüm otomobil modellerini pazarlama yetkisine sahip sayılır. Ayrıca, ikinci el otomobil sektöründe haklı görülen uygulamalara göre, bu otomobillerin üreticisiyle hiçbir bağlantısı olmayan bağımsız bir üçüncü tarafça yapılan ikinci el otomobil satışları ile bu üretici tarafından yetkilendirilmiş bir bayi veya distribütör tarafından yapılan satışlar arasında bir ayrım yapılmalıdır. Bu durum, mevcut davada olduğu gibi, söz konusu ikinci el otomobillerin koleksiyoncular tarafından özellikle beğenilen ve değer verilen klasik, lüks, yüksek kaliteli modeller olması durumunda daha da geçerlidir.

·      Buna göre, Temyiz Kurulu'nun görüşünün aksine, TESTAROSSA markasını taşıyan ikinci el bir otomobilin, itiraz edilen markanın sahibi tarafından yetkilendirilmiş bir bayi veya distribütör tarafından satılması, satışın, marka sahibinin zımni de olsa rızası ile gerçekleştirildiğinin bir göstergesi olduğu kabul edilmelidir.

 

Ve tüm bu açıklamalar uyarınca, Avrupa Birliği Genel Mahkemesi, EUIPO 5. Daire kararını iptal ederek başvuru sahibi Ferrari S.P.A’yı haklı bulmuştur.

Henüz ülkemiz içtihatlarında bir benzeri ile karşılaşmadığım bu yaklaşımı dikkatinize sunmak isterim. Nitekim kanaatimce de, bazı markalar gerçekten de sahibi tarafından kullanılmayarak güçlenmektedir.

İşte, “geri dönmesiyle” reklam konusu olup güçlenen, oysaki yok olmasıyla güçlenmesi gereken birkaç örnek:

	FERRARI  - TESTAROSSA
	SONY - WALKMAN
	LC WAIKIKI

 Kararın tamamı için: 

• https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62023TJ1103 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OPEN PANEL 2025: Innovation, AI and IP with Dimitrios Ioannidis,Esq

OPEN PANEL 2025: Innovation, AI and Intellectual Property

with

Dimitrios Ioannidis, Esq

Dimitrios Ioannidis, Esq. is a partner at Roach, Ioannidis & Megaloudis, LLC in Boston, Massachusetts, with extensive expertise in Business Transactions, Arbitration, International Law, Civil Litigation, and a lecturer at Boston University School of Law. Mr. Ioannidis is the founder of the Boston International Innovation Moot and a member of the Global Advisory Board of the Foreign Direct Investment International Arbitration Moot.

Detailed information on Mr. Ioannidis can be found here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dimitrios-ioannidis-4783258/ 

Detailed information on Boston International Innovation Moot can be found here: https://www.innovationmoot.com/ 

The Motive Behind the Boston International Innovation Moot:

The way we teach students is based on the idea of precedent. We give them many cases, ask them to study them, and then we ask questions. When they become lawyers, they tend to follow the same mentality. The education of lawyers is to train them how to study events of the past, whether they are decisions or laws enacted. We always look in the past but very very rarely look into the future. As a result, when a client, a start-up company, for example, comes and says that they have an innovative idea, we do not exactly know what existing legislation may be used to support that innovation. This is why I founded the Boston International Innovation Moot (“BIIM”). In all, we also need to consider that scientists, lawyers, and innovators don’t mix well. The entire model of education and the practice of law doesn’t work well with the incredible fast pace of innovation.

The Issues on Traditional IP Rights:

I ask students, “What should come first: Innovation or Legislation?”. Scientists tell me that they need the legislation so that they can innovate. Lawyers typically tell me the opposite. So, this is one of major themes of the Innovation Moot; how do we, as lawyers, deal with emerging technologies that have no regulation.

Last year, we had the moot problem around the ownership rights of the formula of the perfume Chanel No.05. I worked with a company from Texas, which was using an AI platform that could actually give us all the ingredients of all the perfumes. If someone could easily provide the ingredients and the exact formula of Chanel Number 05, by using an AI, then who owns it? Is it a trade secret? Of course it is, as it is protected, like the name, the box, the colors of the trade name. But now, the AI is able to provide the exact formula. So, who owns the formula? I think there is no right or wrong answers and these are issues that we need to discuss. We have traditional IP rights, but when it comes to AI, we are not quite sure what the capabilities are and what is protected.

Will Law-Related AI Platforms Replace Lawyers?:

In 2022, I wrote a law review article, titled:“Will Artificial Intelligence Replace Arbitrators Under the Federal Arbitration Act?”. The Federal Arbitration Act was enacted in the USA in 1925. Back in 1925, when we didn’t have the modern airplanes of today, when traveling around the USA and the world was extremely difficult, , the US Congress enacted that law. When we look back in history, we see that neither lawyers or judges were supportive of arbitration. Everyone was against arbitration, except business people; our clients. 75 business organizations testified in the US Congress in support of passing the Arbitration law. One proponent of the legislation said that “lawyers are a waste of time”.. Business people just wanted to easily solve their disputes and this is why the law was passed. Clients drive our innovational targets, WE DO NOT.

I also asked questions like: If you and I make a contract, and include a little paragraph that says “We want to decide any disputes between us through ChatGPT.” Is that enforceable? Would a judge say that AI is not a human, and this clause is not enforceable? The second question is, if we agree on a provision of arbitration through an AI, and we go to a jurisdiction that has accepted these types of arbitrations, would that be enforceable in another jurisdiction?

We have to analyze the science behind all this innovation, and we lawyers do not tend to do that.

There are two trends, especially in the US, that I want people to think about: (1) I did a lot of research during Covid-19, back when I was writing the article, and I could not find any investment on AI platforms as a result of my research. No one cared about law-related AI platforms. Then, ChatGPT came, and everything changed. After 2022, the kind of investment put into these AI platforms was incredible. A year ago, a company on the West Coast of the US raised 900 million dollars, when the valuation of the company was 3 billion dollars, and they do something very simple; they take documents from lawyers, and then use an AI to pick up patterns of retrieve information from the documents by using an AI platform. Now, Venture capitalists are putting a lot of money into law- related platforms. This is the first trend. (2) As to the second trend, in 2022, only 2 states in the US considered legislation that would allow non-lawyers to provide some legal services, and whether or not non-lawyers could own law firms. Currently, there are 10 states that are going through that kind of debate.

We have business people putting in a lot of money in AI platforms, and states in the US debating on the legislation that allows non-lawyers to own law firms and provide legal services. Guess what is going to happen to lawyers now? We are going to be pushed out, just like what happened with arbitration in the year 1925. Clients will say that hiring a lawyer is too expensive and that they want to resolve disputes easily. So, the use of AI tools in law will increase exponentially in the coming years and those lawyers who fight that trend will go out of business.

There are a lot of lawyers who tell me we still need humans to make decisions. But I disagree. Our clients are going to decide what we need, because they pay. They don’t want to pay for a lawyer; they just want to resolve disputes easily. I think the entire profession is going to change.

What do you think about a plain petition written using ChatGPT? Recently, a petition written by ChatGPT was rejected. Wouldn’t there be an issue with the acceptance of these petitions if AI platforms replaced lawyers?:

Now, we are still a little backwards. There is a common rule and approach that bans the use of AI in most moot court competitions. But, if you go to the Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court, they say that they allow the use of AI, because it’s a tool. I also used an AI to write the closing arguments in my Innovation Moot Court problem for next year, and got almost perfect closing arguments for both parties. I would say, they were good enough to be used in Court. If I use an AI and indicate fake cases and file them in court, that would be a big problem, as I’ll be misleading the court. That is not accepted. But if you use an AI tool and write a great argument, once you review and make sure that it is your argument, and you file it with a court, that works very well. AI is a tool, so let’s see it as that.

For example, what if we gave students a tool that allows them to argue against the AI to practice? I did exactly that, with the moot problem from the Foreign Direct Investment Arbitration Moot. I put it into the AI platform that we are developing. I wanted the best arguments for both the claimant and the defendant. The answers that I was getting were very good. AI is a tool, and we should not be afraid to use all the tools within our capacity that would make us better lawyers. As long as it is our work that goes out, we can use any kind of tool that we want. Everyone is using it. If you file a complaint in a case, it is based on facts that you have reviewed but written by AI, what difference does it make? AI is just a tool.

There is a petition that was filed by a law firm in the US, challenging the decision of an arbitrator on the basis that the arbitrator wrote the opinion using ChatGPT. They went through the details of how the answers were very similar to the answers that ChatGPT would give. This case is still pending. If you don’t do any work as a lawyer or an arbitrator, and if you simply type a couple of letters and command the AI, then it’s a problem, as you haven’t adapted your own work. But as long as it is your work, I think you should be able to use any available tools. If you abuse the tool, misdirect the court, or the other lawyer, that would be a problem and an unethical violation.

If we apply the opinion that we use AI only as a “tool” that we provide our inputs, how would we answer the conflicting issues in terms of an artistic or intellectual work subject to copyright protection? It’s a debated subject whether AI could be the author of any work.:

I’ve used an AI, and I gave a lecture back in April 2025 titled “The AI Meets the Bible”. I wrote the phrase “the last day of earth” as a prompt. I got incredible photographs of fire, destruction, and humans who were facing fire. Then, I used a phrase related to “heaven”. I got the pictures of blue skies, waters, forests... the pictures were peaceful. Then I wrote the word “hell”, and AI gave me some images of Earth. What that mean to me is that the AI tools we have today are a mirror of our world. They simply give us back what we give it. It doesn’t generate any original works at this point in time. It simply takes information from what we feed it. Generative AI tools are super calculators. They give us the most likely output according to the inputs they have.

About AI replacing the lawyers, I understand your point in terms of jurisdiction. However, how would we define the applicable law if the decision maker itself is AI, and parties are from different countries? How would we provide the relevant inputs on the applicable law to the AI platforms?:

If this were the case of an arbitration and we indicated a provision to the arbitration agreement on AI, we would probably indicate a provision on the applicable law as well.

We also need to learn about: “RAG = RETRIEAVAL AUGMENTED GENERATION”. The problem with AI now is that it picks up a lot of information from lots of sources. For example, if you use Gemini, created by Google, it picks up information from a lot of available sources within Google. RAG is still an AI model, but it’s sort of a closed system. It takes information from the resources that you are giving it. You kind of control the available prompts. When you close the system and do not allow it to go beyond the prompts that you provided, it is called Retrieval Augmented Generation. AI is a mirror of our world; it picks up all the information we are feeding it. In my lectures on AI, I often tell the audience that the AI doesn’t pick any of the information and resources unless you “feed the beast”.

They say that less than 5% of the input AI use comes from Africa. Most of the input is not from the places you normally think of. So, where is this input being created? You’ll realize that the input is not from all over the world. As a result, the outcome from the AI is very limited. I think as lawyers, we need to be able to organize the information that we have. In your country, for example, you have so much stuff that is published, but most of it is not accessible to the AI. The key is to “feed the AI” with the materials you believe correspond to your knowledge so the output you will get will reflect that input.

Issues On Copyrights, Software Codes and Emerging Technologies:

I’m considering organizing a Masters program in the Dominican Republic. The questions came up when I was talking to a friend of mine from MIT, who is the founder of the Supercomputing Lab at MIT. At the beginning of the use of ChatGPT, around the year 2021, he said that a lot of people at MIT were concerned about copyright infringement.

There are code developers who develop open-source codes. It is a type of code that people develop and allow others to use. There are several reasons for them to allow the open use; first, they get publicity. If 10 thousand people use the code I developed, it elevates my status. When someone uses my code, they have to attribute. The second motive is that if you create something good and I am allowed to use it, that supports innovation. As a result, virtual libraries began to be created. An example of how they work can be demonstrated by assuming that your school has a huge virtual library, and I ask “Would you mind if I upload my code to your library so others can use it?”. These are called REPOSITORIES. It’s like a virtual library where code developers can upload their codes, so others can find and use it. The first license developed was by MIT, and it was very simple. It had 2 simple paragraphs basically indicating that “We are not responsible if something goes wrong when you use the code. And you also have to attribute and recognize the work of the author.”

For example, when a developer uploads the code into the virtual library, they often put that license at the bottom of the code. As a result, when someone uses that code, they are automatically bound by the license the coder provided. There are other institutions and other licenses out there, but the MIT license is the most prominent, and it has about 27% usage worldwide.

Basically, people were uploading code to the repositories. One of them is called GitHub. GitHub has millions of code that people have uploaded. I think it was started in2007, as a non-profit organization. The whole idea was to support innovation. Most of the people uploaded their codes with a license, and some people uploaded their codes openly without a license requirement. As a result of the license requirements on the codes, you are subject to that license if you use the code, you cannot sue if anything goes wrong, and you have to recognize the work of the coder work, show attribution. This is the same logic as preventing plagiarism.

In 2017, Microsoft purchased GitHub for I believe, 7.5 billion dollars. That means it had the access to all these codes. Then OpenAI came and Microsoft invested a lot of money in OpenAI. Now, ChatGPT is a tool and trained with Microsoft’s copilot program. What they do is, they take all the coding from GitHub and all other available sources, and they trained the AI. There are now litigation cases in the US and elsewhere that claim that OpenAI and Microsoft trained their model to take the information, anonymize it, and accordingly remove the rights of authors’ names. The model is built upon many codes by different people, and the output is created as if it is owned by OpenAI- ChatGPT, with no reference.

When I first talked to Jeremy Kepner at MIT, I asked, “Can we prove this infringement? How can we show the code that ChatGPT is using?”. The answer from a lot of scientists was that “Yes, we can tell where the code came from. We can tell the source of the ChatGPT outputs.”.

We eventually wrote a law review article that we published in 2023; we basically amended the MIT license to exclude non-human access. Now, the MIT License that we have amended says that “This is only available to humans. Only a human can use it. Non-human access to the code is not allowed.” As a result, if ChatGPT uses the code, it constitutes an infringement. When the article was pre- published, we got some feedback and began to see some changes. Now we begin to see Generative AI platforms entering into licensing agreements with some institutions that have developers. We may not be able to prove it precisely, but all of the information that you are pulling comes from these resources. Some of them are not copyrighted, but some of them are.

The first case was filed in November 2022 as a class action. Now, we have about 25-30 cases filed throughout the US. It is very interesting to see how the Courts are going to handle something that has no legislation behind it. Some similar arguments indicate the fair use doctrine. But, fair use in the IP area of the law is very, very specific.

The Idea of Personhood for AI:

This is an idea developed by a friend of mine, Stephen L. Thaler. Stephen Thaler has created an AI called “DABUS”. What Stephen says is that DABUS can create a stream of consciousness much like a human brain. The question is, if we get to the point of an AI generating a stream of consciousness, is that something that the humans created, or is it something that indicates the AI has rights?

There was a famous “Monkey Selfie Case”. A photographer had many devices, like gears, photography machines, etc. The photographer took a break, and when he came back, he saw an amazing picture of a monkey. It was a selfie the monkey took by playing with the camera. He published the photograph, and then somebody used it without authorization. The Court had to answer: does the monkey own the rights to the selfie it took? The Court held that animals cannot be inventors under our current IP laws. Our system does not recognize any of these rights.

In another case in New York, a group of animal activists filed a petition to the court about the zoo in New York, holding an elephant named “Happy”. They said that the elephant wanted to leave and the zoo had no right to keep Happy without its permission. Can an animal have any rights? The Court decided that animals did not have any rights to bring claims. But two of the judges considered that perhaps we should recognize some of the rights of animals.

Stephen Thaler makes the claim that the AI DABUS is the author and inventor of a work of art. All of the Courts rejected the claim and indicated that rights cannot be recognized on AI. Some of the Courts in South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand initially considered that maybe we should recognize some rights of the AI.

Right now, we are not recognizing the idea of personhood for AI. It’s a tool right now. Of course, it is subject to misuse, just like the Internet. But still, most of us use the Internet in a good way; it’s a tool that helps us. The same thing is going to happen with AI as well.

The word “Artificial Intelligence” is not a good word, according to me. “Artificial” has a meaning like it has bulbs, wires, and some kind of electronic materials. The word that I like to use is “Autonomous Intelligence”.

When we have autonomous intelligence, where the AI can not only stream a consciousness but can also exist sufficiently without the push of a button, then what do we do?. We also studied this issue in last year’s Innovation Moot problem.

The Technology of Gene Editing and Viruses:

Another important topic is, we now have viruses that change the behavior. The question I ask is whether or not we can use viruses or gene editing to modify behavior? So, if somebody commits a crime, instead of putting them in jail, we can modify their behavior with viruses. Can we use a virus instead of a jail sentence to modify that behavior? And for people who are sentenced to imprisonment for a lifetime, can we use gene editing to modify their behaviors?

This is an existing technology out there, but we don’t have the regulatory background.

About “Lawlipops":

Lawlipops is a reality live stream for law, founded by Mr. Ioannidis. It’s a start-up aiming to teach law through precedent games and methods personalized for each user, depending on their ways of learning. The users will play games and learn. 

So, let’s think outside the box in terms of legal education and our profession as it will evolve whether we like it or not. Can we afford to stay out of these changes? I say no.

Thank you very much Mr. Ioannidis for this fruitful and enlightening panel. 

DİJİTAL TELİF HAKLARI KANUN TEKLİFİ

Dijital Telif Hakları Kanun Teklifi İncelemesi: 

12 Aralık 2025 tarihinde Dijital Telif Hakları Kanun Teklifi ("Kanun teklifi") yayımlandı. Esas itibariyle Kanun teklifinin amacı, dijital ortamlarda telif hakkı korumasını sağlamak ve dijital ortamlarda gerçekleşen telif hakkı ihlalleri için korumayı belirli bir çerçeveye oturtmaktır. Kanun teklifi, özellikle "aracı hizmet sağlayıcılar" için sorumluluk ve yaptırımlar düzenlemekle birlikte birtakım mekanizmalar öngörmektedir. 

• İlk olarak dikkat çeken kısım, Kanun teklifinin amacı ile birlikte Tanımlar kısmında getirilen "aracı hizmet sağlayıcı" ifadesidir. Mevzuatta yerleşik "aracı hizmet sağlayıcı" ibaresinin kapsamının genişletildiği görülmektedir:

Kanun teklifi, amaç itibariyle dijital ortamlarda yayınlanan ve telif hakkına konu olan herhangi bir eserin korumasını sağlamayı öngörmektedir. Bu koruma planı çizilirken, ifade hürriyeti ve telif hakları çatışmasında denge koruması gözetilmiş, küçük ve bağımsız yayıncıların korunacağı objektiflik kriterine önem gösterilmiştir. Ancak Kanun teklifi, söz konusu yükümlülükleri düzenlerken dijital ortam sorumlusu olarak "aracı hizmet sağlayıcı" ibaresini kullanmakla beraber şu şekilde bir tanım getirmiştir: 

"Aracı hizmet sağlayıcı: İnternet üzerinde kullanıcıların içerik yüklemesine, depolamasına veya paylaşmasına imkan tanıyan her türlü dijital platformlar ve servisler."

Kanun teklifi, "aracı hizmet sağlayıcı" sorumluluğunu düzenleyen 5. maddeye ilişkin gerekçesinde ise: 

"Dijital ortamlarda haber içeriklerinin izinsiz kullanımının yaygınlaşması nedeniyle..." demektedir.

Dikkatimi çeken kısım şu ki, aslında Kanun teklifi her ne kadar "aracı hizmet sağlayıcı" ibaresini kullanmış olsa da, bu ibarenin kapsamında "yer sağlayıcı"ların da bulunabileceği bir tanım ve telif hakkı koruma amacı getirmiştir. Nitekim, halihazırda yerleşik tanımlar incelendiği zaman;

6563 sayılı Elektronik Ticaretin Düzenlenmesi Hakkında Kanun'a göre: 

"Aracı hizmet sağlayıcı: Başkalarına ait iktisadi ve ticari faaliyetlerin yapılmasına elektronik ticaret ortamını sağlayan gerçek ve tüzel kişiler" 

5651 sayılı İnternet Ortamında Yapılan Yayınların Düzenlenmesi ve Bu Yayınlar Yoluyla İşlenen Suçlarla Mücadele Edilmesi Hakkında Kanun'a göre: 

"Yer sağlayıcı: Hizmet ve içerikleri barındıran sistemleri sağlayan veya işleten gerçek ve tüzel kişiler" 

olarak tanımlanmaktadır. Bu şekilde mükerrer bir terimin, genişletilmiş tanımıyla Kanun teklifinde yer alması, işbu teklifin yürürlüğe girdiği zaman yer sağlayıcıları da kapsayacağı hassasiyetini akıllara getirmektedir. 

Kanun teklifinde kalem kalem yer alan yükümlülükler özel olarak Telif Hakkı İzleme Yönetim Kurulunca belirlenen usule göre günlük tekil kullanıcı ortalaması 250.000'i geçen veya yıllık brüt geliri Kurulca belirlenen eşeği aşan "aracı hizmet sağlayıcılar" için getirilmişken, bu kriterlerin altında kalan "aracı hizmet sağlayıcılar" bildirim yükümlülüğü ve içerik kaldırma usulünü belirleme yükümlülüğü altında olacaktır. 

• Diğer yönden OİTS, UDES gibi koruma mekanizmaları dikkat çekicidir. 

OİTS: Dijital içeriklerde yer alan telif hakkı ihlallerinin tespiti için kullanılacak yazılım ve algoritmalar olarak Otomatik İçerik Tanıma Sistemi ("OİTS") yükümlülüğü getirilmiştir. Buna göre, "aracı hizmet sağlayıcılar" etkin bir şekilde OİTS kurma yükümlülüğü altındadır. OİTS ile birlikte telif hakkı ihlali içeren bir içerik algoritmalar sayesinde tespit edilebilecektir. "Aracı hizmet sağlayıcılar"a, OİTS sisteminin etkinliği üzerine Telif Hakkı İzleme Yönetim Kuruluna şeffaflık raporlaması yükümlülüğü de getirilmiştir.

UDES: Halihazırda telif hakkını haiz eserler, T.C Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı'nın telif hakları eser veritabanı üzerinden sorgulanmaktadır. Kanun teklifine göre, Ulusal Dijital Eser Kayıt Sistemi (UDES) öngörülmektedir. Söz konusu sistem, eserlerin ve ilgili hakların dijital ortamda tescil edildiği, erişilebilir bir veri tabanıdır ve delil özelliği bakımından güç sağlamaktadır. UDES üzerinden tescil süreçleri, Kanun teklifinin yürürlüğe girmesini takiben çıkarılacak Yönetmelikler ile detaylandırılacaktır. UDES'i kurmak ve denetlemekle yükümlü organ ise Telif Hakkı İzleme Yönetim Kuruludur. 

Telif Uyuşmazlık Tahkim Komisyonu: Kanun teklifi, üyeleri telif hukuku, bilişim hukuku ve dijital teknoloji alanlarında uzman olan ve bağımsız 5 kişilik bir Telif Uyuşmazlık Tahkim Komisyonu öngörmektedir. Uyuşmazlıkların işbu Komisyona başvurulması üzerine en geç 15 gün içerisinde teknik bir inceleme gerçekleştirilir. Komisyonun verdiği kararlar taraflar için bağlayıcı olacaktır ve mahkemeler için öncelikle dikkate alınacaktır. 

• Uygulamada hak çatışması dengesinin bozulabileceği çelişkiler de akıllara gelmektedir: 

1-) Yaptırıma tabi tutulabilecek sorumlu platformun değerlendirme ve önleme yükümlülüğü: Kanun teklifi 9. madde ile yükümlülüklerini yerine getirmeyen aracı hizmet sağlayıcılar için öngörülen yaptırımlara yer vermektedir. Aynı zamanda aracı hizmet sağlayıcıların yükümlülükleri incelendiğindeyse;

Madde 5, 2. fıkra (b) bendinde; "Telif hakkı ihlali teşkil eden içeriklerin platforma yüklenmesini bildirim alınmadan önce önlemek..."  yükümlülüğü getirilmiştir. 

Madde 5, 2.fıkra (d) bendinde ise: "telif hakkı bildirimlerini hızlı ve etkin bir şekilde değerlendirmek ve haklı bulunan ihlalleri kaldırmak..." yükümlülüğü düzenlenmiştir.

Yükümlülük ihlali durumunda aracı hizmet sağlayıcılara öngörülen yaptırımlarla birlikte incelendiğinde, aynı zamanda aracı hizmet sağlayıcıların söz konusu ilk ihbarları değerlendiren ve içerikleri kaldıran platform olması ve bildirim bile almadan önce ihlal nitelikli içeriklerin yayınlanmasını önleme sorumluluğu, haksız yere içeriklerin kaldırılmasıyla birlikte ifade özgürlüğü dengesi bakımından sakıncalar meydana getirebilecektir. Telif hakkı ihlalini önlemek adına aracı hizmet sağlayıcı platformlarda içeriklerin haksız yere kaldırılması gibi problemler öngörülebilir. İçeriği haksız yere kaldırılan içerik üreticilerin, askı süresi dahi olsa, bu süreçte mahrum kalacağı kazançlar gündeme gelebilir. 

Bu durum, sadece Kanun teklifi ile sınırlı olmayıp genel olarak dijital yolla fikri mülkiyet hak ihlallerinde halihazırda karşılaşılan bir hak dengesi problemidir. 

2-) Yapay zeka tarafından üretilen içeriklerde Kurulun re'sen hak ihlali denetlemesi: Kanun teklifinin 3. maddesi, 5.fıkrası uyarınca Kurul re'sen yapay zekanın ürettiği veya yapay zekanın yeniden kullandığı içeriklerde eser sahipliği ve telif hakkı ihlallerini denetleyecektir. Yapay zekanın eserlere dahil olduğu durumlarda telif hakkı ihlali soruları halihazırda popüler şekilde tartışmaya açık bir konu. 

İlerleyen dönemlerde yapay zekanın da bir "kişi" olarak kabul göreceği veya sair haklara sahip olacağı bir düzende, eser sahipliği bakımından şu anki uygulama sonuçları ve alınacak Kurul kararları elverişsiz hale gelebilir ve yerleşik uygulama sağlamak güç olabilir. 

Bu eserlerde ihlal incelemesi gerçekleştirilirken Kurul tarafından nasıl bir yol ve inceleme gerçekleştirileceği önem taşımakta. 

Sadece Kanun teklifi ile sınırlı olmaksızın uluslarası bir diğer endişe ise, yapay zeka tarafından yeniden kullanılan veya üretilen içeriklerde telif hakkı ihlalini ortaya koymak için yaşanacak ispat noktasıdır. Massachusetts Institute of Technology'de uzmanlar, yapay zeka tarafından üretilen eserlerde belirli bir analiz ile hangi girdilerin kullanıldığını ve telif hakkı ihlallerinin tespitini sağlayabildiklerini, yazılım kodları bakımından onaylamışlardır. Ancak bunun daha kompleks eserlerde tespiti ve ihlalin ispatlanabilirliği noktası hala endişeli bir konudur. 

Sonuç olarak, dijital ortamlarda telif haklarının korunması ve ihlaller bakımından kanun çalışmaları gerekli ve önemli bir gelişmedir. Dijitalleşen dünyanın hak dengesi sağlama açısından getirdiği belirsizlikler, uygulamalar ve tartışmalar gelişmelerle senkronize şekilde varlığını korumakta ve bu alanda güncel çalışmaların takibini kaçınılmaz kılmaktadır. 

Kanun teklifine buradan erişebilirsiniz:

https://cdn.tbmm.gov.tr/KKBSPublicFile/D28/Y4/T2/WebOnergeMetni/1dc553c6-3bdd-4c92-b61b-7c427371629c.pdf  

Aysu K. ERGİN