Yayınlar

Can registering a 3D mark breach competition law? Turkish Competition Authority says yes and orders withdrawal

• The Turkish Competition Authority has ruled that Tetra Laval's registration and enforcement of 3D trademarks and designs for aseptic carton packaging constituted an abuse of dominance, marking the first time mere registration of IP rights was deemed anticompetitive in Türkiye.

• Tetra Laval and Tetra Pak were fined over 130 million Turkish lire and ordered to withdraw specific trademark and design registrations for packaging shapes, based on findings that these were obtained to restrict competition and create a de facto tying effect in the filling machine and packaging markets.

• The decision is contentious as it penalises IP registration itself rather than just enforcement tactics, with critics arguing that legitimate trademark protection – if it meets legal criteria for distinctiveness – should not inherently violate competition law.

 

In a landmark decision, the Turkish Competition Authority has concluded that registering three-dimensional (3D) trademarks and designs can amount to a breach of competition law. Although it is controversial, the ruling underscores a balance between intellectual property (IP) protection and the principles of fair competition. The decision was issued on 1 August 2024 (Decision No. 24-32/758-319), and its reasoned version was released on 16 October 2025.

Background

The investigation originated from a complaint filed by a Turkish packaging company, Poşetsan Ambalaj San. ve Tic. AŞ (Poşetsan) against Tetra Laval Holding & Finance SA (Tetra Laval) and its Turkish affiliate Tetra Pak Paketleme Sanayi ve Ticaret Limited Şirketi (Tetra Pak). The complainant alleged that both parties hold a dominant position in the aseptic liquid food filling machine market and create a monopoly by registering the shapes of packaging boxes as 3D trademarks or designs, and by relying on these IP rights to block or restrict competitors' activities.

Tetra Laval registered the prismatic aseptic carton box as a 3D trademark before the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (TPTO) (App. No. 2014/54843). Tetra Laval also owns a 3D trademark registration (No. 2022/119379), a design registration (No. 2013/08197) and several pending 3D trademark applications (No. 2022/119373, No. 2022/119376 and No. 2022/119380) for alternative carton box forms, all of which have passed the TPTO's absolute grounds examination and are progressing towards registration. The same packaging shape has also been filed or registered under Tetra Laval's name in multiple jurisdictions worldwide.

Competition Authority's assessment

The Competition Authority determined that Tetra Pak held a dominant position in both the aseptic filling machine and packaging markets, and that Tetra Laval's conduct – including trademark-based enforcement actions, restrictive contractual terms and an expansive filing strategy for 3D trademarks and designs – created a de facto tying effect and hindered competitors. The Competition Authority concluded that these practices constituted a misuse of IP rights and an abuse of dominance under competition law.

Decision

The Competition Authority concluded that the 3D packaging trademark (No. 2014/54843) and related pending applications were used in a manner that restricted competition, supported by contractual terms reinforcing this effect, and thus constituted an abuse of dominance. It further held that the trademark and design registrations for the same packaging shape (No. 2014/54843 and No. 2013/08197) were obtained through ‘fraud against the law' with the intent to limit competition. As a result, Tetra Laval was ordered to withdraw its IP filings and registrations (trademarks nos. 2014/54843, 2022/119380, 2022/119376 and Design No. 2013/08197). The trademarks No. 2022/119379 and No. 2022/119373 were not subject to the withdrawal order, as they include the word mark ‘Tetra Prisma' on the 3D shape.

Tetra Laval and Tetra Pak were also fined a total of over 130 million Turkish lire. The parties were given 60 days to challenge the reasoned decision before the administrative court.

Comments and conclusion

This decision marks a turning point in Türkiye, as the mere registration of a 3D trademark or design was, for the first time, deemed to restrict competition. The Competition Authority went so far as to order the withdrawal of the relevant IP applications and registrations.

In our view, if a 3D shape satisfies the legal criteria for protection as a trademark or design, its registration alone should not be regarded as a breach of competition law. Trademark rights are, by nature, fundamental property rights granted to recognise and protect the creative effort and distinctiveness of their owners. The act of registration simply formalises this exclusivity, which is inherent to the very rationale of trademark protection. Therefore, penalising the mere acquisition of such rights appears conceptually inconsistent with the principles of IP law. Any distinctive sign necessarily grants its proprietor a degree of market exclusivity and the outcome of this case should not be interpreted as anticompetitive.