Category: Turkiye

  • Turunc Advises Bogazici Ventures on Investment in Lokum Games

    Turunc has advised Bogazici Ventures on its investment in Lokum Games. The round included APY Ventures and other investors. AAT Partners reportedly advised Lokum. Aksan reportedly advised APY Ventures.

    Lokum Games is a mobile games development studio.

    Bogazici Ventures is a Turkish venture capital fund focused primarily on fintech, health tech, retail tech, and gaming. 

    The Turunc team included Managing Partner Kerem Turunc, Partner Yasemin Erden, and Associates Beste Yildizili Ergul, Naz Esen, Canberk Taze, Ovgu Kopal, and Baran Ezeli.

    Editor’s Note: After this article was published, AAT Partners confirmed it had advised Lokum Games on the recent investment process.

  • Trademark Revocation Authority Passed from Courts to Turkish Patent and Trademark Office

    Article 26 of the Industrial Property Law No. 6769 (“IPL“) authorises the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (“Office“) to revoke trademarks in cases set out in the relevant article. According to IPL Article 192/1-(a), this provision was set to come into effect seven years from its publication date, i.e., 10 January 2024. Additionally, 4th provisional article of the IPL stipulated that this authority would be enforced by the courts until that time. Thus, with the expiration of the aforementioned seven-year period, the authority for the administrative revocation of trademarks was passed from the civil courts to the Office as of 10 January 2024.

    Pending Cases Will Continue to be Heard in Courts

    Prior to 10 January 2024, the revocation of trademarks was adjudicated by court decisions through trademark revocation actions. The competent court for resolving the dispute, would send the revocation decision to the Office, and the trademarks subject to revocation would be cancelled from the registry.

    With the new system, the authority to adjudicate has shifted from the courts to the Office. This change will not affect the fate of the pending revocation cases before the courts, meaning that the courts will continue to hear the pending cases and decide whether to revoke the relevant trademark(s) or not. The finalised revocation decisions will be sent to the Office ex officio to be cancelled from the registry.

    The Scope of the Authority of the Office on the Revocation of Trademarks

    With the entry into force of the regulation, trademarks requested to be revoked after 10 January 2024 will be revoked by the Office in the following cases:

    • Within five years from the date of registration of the trademark, the trademark owner has not used the trademark seriously in Turkey in terms of the registered goods or services without a justifiable reason, or the use of the trademark has been suspended for five years without interruption;
    • The trademark becoming a common name for the registered goods or services due to the actions of the trademark owner or the lack of necessary measures;
    • Misleading the public, especially as regards the nature, quality or geographical origin of the registered goods or services as a result of the use of the trademark owner or with their permission;
    • Violation of the technical specifications of a guarantee or collective trademark as regulated in Article 32 of the IPL.

    In case the Office receives a request for revocation of a trademark, the owner of the respective trademark will be notified of such request. Thereupon, the trademark owner will have one moth to submit their responses to the Office. Subsequently, the Office will make its decision by examining the file within the framework of the claims of the parties.

    The decisions of the Office on the revocation request can be appealed before the Re-examination and Evaluation Board (“RERB“). Further, the decisions of the RERB can be appealed before the Ankara Civil Court of Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights. The Office  has recently released the Draft Regulation on Amendments to the Regulation on the Implementation of the Industrial Property Code, which includes procedural details on how revocation requests will be filed, for public opinion. The Authority is expected to finalize the draft after assessing the opinions. In this respect, it can be said that the Office is preparing for the problems that may arise and is trying to clarify the details regarding the procedures for revocation.

    Conclusion

    The regulation, aimed at aligning trademark revocation processes in Turkiye with the European legislation, is expected to lead to quicker resolution of trademark cancellations through the Office compared to the courts. However, as stated above, since the decisions of the Office can be appealed before the Ankara Civil Court of Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights, the finalisation process of the decision may be prolonged The direction in which this regulation, marking a new era in trademark law, will evolve is expected to become clearer in the upcoming period.

    By Tarik Guleryuz, Partner, and Beliz Boyalikli, Associate, Guleryuz Partners

  • Paksoy Advises Turk Ekonomi Bankasi on USD 400 Million Issuance

    Paksoy, working with Mayer Brown, has advised Turk Ekonomi Bankasi on its USD 400 million issuance of fixed-rate resettable tier 2 notes due 2034. Allen & Overy and its Turkish affiliate Gedik & Eraksoy reportedly advised the joint bookrunners. 

    According to Paksoy, “the notes are admitted to listing and trading on Euronext Dublin. TEB’s tier 2 issuance is a new record among Turkish issuers with demand exceeding USD 2.9 billion – it was seven times over-subscribed.” 

    The Paksoy team included Partner Omer Collak, Counsel Merve Kurdak, and Associate Melis Gencol Ince.

  • Aksan Advises Founder One on ERG Controls Investment

    The Aksan Law Firm has advised venture capital fund Founder One on its investment in ERG Controls.

    ERG Controls is a company that provides digital hand hygiene solutions in facilities working with hygienic standards, especially hospitals.

    Founder One is an Istanbul-headquartered venture capital fund that specializes in early-stage technology-focused investments.

    The Aksan team was led by Partner Alper Onar and included Associates Betul Colak and Oguz Madran.

  • Turunc Advises Bogazici Ventures on Toon Metal Games Investment

    Turunc has advised Bogazici Ventures on its investment in mobile gaming company Toon Metal Games.

    Toon Metal Games develops games in the casual and hybrid-casual game genres. It received an investment of USD 250,000 based on a valuation of USD 2.5 million.

    Bogazici Ventures is a Turkish venture capital fund focused primarily on fintech, health tech, retail tech, and gaming.

    The Turunc team included Managing Partner Kerem Turunc, Partner Yasemin Erden, and Associates Beste Yildizili Ergul, Naz Esen, Ovgu Kopal, Canberk Taze, and Baran Ezeli.

  • Aksan Advises APY Ventures on Digiage Investment

    The Aksan law firm has advised APY Ventures on its investment in Bilisim Vadisi Digiage.

    Digiage is a start-up company that organizes game camps and an accelerator program for game developers.

    APY Ventures is a venture capital firm focused on early-stage technology start-ups.

    The Aksan team included Partner Alper Onar and Associate Nihan Kul.

  • Important Regulations in Banking Legislation Regarding Risk Groups, Credit Limitations and Credit Operations of Banks

    The Regulation on Determination of Risk Groups and Credit Limitations (“Risk Groups Regulation“) and the Regulation on Credit Operations of Banks (“Credit Operations Regulation“) prepared by the Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency (“BRSA“) were published in the Official Gazette dated 21.12.2023. Accordingly, the provisions regarding the determination of risk groups and calculation of credit limits in the Regulation on Credit Operations of Banks dated 1.11.2006 (“Former Regulation“) were adapted to the Risk Groups Regulation and detailed regulations on the determination of risk groups were introduced. With the Regulation on Credit Transactions, the Former Regulation dated 1.11.2006 was repealed, and other provisions of the Former Regulation were reviewed and reorganised.

    Both regulations, which entered into force as of 1.1.2024, contain additional provisions and amendments that are of great importance for banks.

    Amendments Introduced by the Risk Groups Regulation

    With the Risk Groups Regulation, most of the regulations in the Former Regulation regarding the determination of risk groups were retained, while additional provisions were introduced to prevent concentration in loans and for more effective risk management. Under the existing legislation, in order to prevent concentration in loans to be extended to a person or risk group, loans were limited to banks’ equity, while the Regulation on Risk Groups, which entered into force on 1.1.2024, introduced new rules regarding the limitation of loans to banks’ capital and the calculation of the risk amounts to be used in this limitation.

    Within this framework, the loans that can be extended by the banks are limited:

    • To 25% of the equity and capital of banks, in terms of those extended to a real person or a risk group, and
    • To 20% of the equity and capital of banks, in terms of those extended to the risk group to which the bank belongs.

    As such, according to the regulation, as of 1 January 2024 the excess amounts

    must be eliminated until 31.12.2024 by amortising 50% of these amounts until 30.6.2024.

    At the same time, the Risk Groups Regulation defines the concept of “Large Loan” and stipulates that loans extended to a real or legal person or a risk group at a rate of 10% or more of the shareholders’ equity shall be considered as large loans and their total amount cannot exceed eight times the bank’s equity.

    Amendments Introduced by the Credit Operations Regulation

    As stated above, the Regulation on Credit Transactions, which entered into force on 1.1.2024, retains most of the provisions of the repealed Regulation on Credit Transactions of Banks dated 1.11.2006 and revised the rest.

    The first important change introduced by the Credit Operations Regulation is the increase in the thresholds for the obligation to request an account status document before credit utilisation. According to the Former Regulation, banks were obliged to request an account status certificate for cash and non-cash loans of 2 million Turkish Liras or more, while this threshold has been increased to 5 million Turkish Liras with the new regulation.

    Credit Operations Regulation also limited scope of the exceptions that made it compulsory to request an account status certificate under the previous regulation, and removed the obligation to request an account status certificate for transactions in exchange for cash, cash equivalents and accounts and precious metals, transactions with the Central Bank of the Republic of Türkiye and public administrations within the scope of central government, transactions in money markets organised by law, transactions in markets where central counterparty service is provided, and transactions between domestic banks with a maturity not exceeding three months, and gave banks the initiative in these matters.

    Review

    The Regulations entered into force on 1 January 2024 introduced significant changes with regard to banking law and practice. In particular, regulations on sanctions regarding risk groups and organising the adaptation process within this year are of great importance for banks.

    By Tarik Guleriuz, Partner, and Selin Nacar Ozturk, Associate, Guleryuz & Partners

  • New Regulation on Active Cooperation/Leniency Enters into Force in Turkey

    A new Regulation on Active Cooperation for Detecting Cartels (“Regulation”) in Turkey entered into force on 16 December 2023. The Turkish Competition Authority (“TCA”) also held a helpful webinar on the topic, highlighting the differences between the old and new regulation. In this article, we highlight two changes that we consider to be the most important: (i) applicants are now required to submit documents that contribute added value; and (ii) applications from cartel facilitators are now explicitly welcomed. Lastly, we present an overview of the conditions for full immunity and for reductions in administrative monetary fines.

    The new Regulation now requires applicants to provide documents that provide “added value” 

    Under the old regulation, applicants were not required to produce documents that would contribute significant added value to the TCA’s investigation. The old Guidelines on the Explanation of the Regulation on Active Cooperation for Detecting Cartels (“Old Guidelines”) explicitly highlighted this point.

    Consequently, any applicant was able to apply for leniency by providing any document not at the disposal of the TCA, e.g., correspondences about a cartel, information about products in relation to a cartel, information concerning the period a cartel was active, or explanations to documents already at the TCA’s disposal. This was in fact recently confirmed by the TCA in its Beypazarı decision. In this decision, the applicant benefited from leniency by providing certain explanations and submitting an additional correspondence, without providing any added value.

    However, as noted by the TCA during its webinar, under the new Regulation, applicants are now required to submit documents that provide an added value to the investigation. According to the Regulation, a document that contributes an added value is defined as follows: “Considering the documents already in the Board’s possession, documents and information that would strengthen the Board’s ability to prove the existence of a cartel.

    Applications from cartel facilitators are also welcomed

    The TCA recently changed its approach in relation to cartel facilitators. In the past, the TCA did not consider cartel facilitators as a party to the cartel. In both its Duru Bilişim and Taximeter decisions, the base fine for cartel facilitators was calculated based on the category “other infringements” as opposed to “cartel infringements”. However, the TCA recently changed its approach in relation to cartel facilitators in its Covid Retail I decision, where the cartel facilitator, Savola, was punished as a part of the cartel.

    The Regulation now explicitly refers to cartel facilitators and states that an application from them is also acceptable. Consequently, it is now clear that cartel facilitators can also apply for full immunity, provided they fulfil all conditions. As such, we expect the TCA to embrace its change of approach and to penalise cartel facilitators as a party to the cartel.

    Conditions for Immunity and Reduction in Monetary Fines to be Imposed

    There is no difference between the Old Guidelines and the Regulation in terms of the time windows to apply for leniency or for full immunity:

    • If no investigation at the time of application: To be the first application prior to an investigation (preliminary or full-fledged).
    • If a full-fledged or preliminary investigation is initiated: Being the first applicant until the receipt of the investigation report, and if the TCA has no evidence to prove a violation. 

    If the applicant does not satisfy the conditions for full-immunity, these are the conditions for reduction in the administrative monetary fine:

    • Applying within 3 months following the receipt of the investigation notice and, in any case, prior to the receipt of the investigation report. The reduction rates will be as follows: 1st applicant: 25-50%, 2nd applicant: 20-40%, 3rd and following: 15-30%.

    Under the old regulation the applicable time window was prior to the receipt of the investigation report and the reduction amounts were as follows: 1st applicant: 1/3 – 1/2, 2nd applicant: 1/4 – 1/3, 3rd and following: 1/6 – 1/4. Accordingly, the time windows and the reduction amounts are now amended.

    Conclusion

    Following the introduction of the settlement mechanism to Turkish competition law in 2021, the lines separating the leniency and settlement mechanisms were relatively blurred at times. Therefore, the TCA decided to draw a clear line between the settlement and leniency mechanisms by introducing the “added value” criterion. 

    As such, the leniency mechanism’s primary aim— obtaining evidence—is underlined. Another rationale behind the amendments to the legislation is to maintain the deterrence of punishments. Before the amendments, undertakings were able to invoke the settlement and leniency mechanism together to benefit from significant fine reductions. In the Beypazarı decision, together with a reduction in fines based on the early payment procedure, the undertaking received an 80% reduction of the fine.

    Under the new Regulation, the newly introduced “added value” criterion makes it harder for undertakings to rely on both mechanisms. Separately, the inclusion of cartel facilitators and the introduction of stricter temporal limits, as noted above, will also have significant effects in the TCA’s upcoming antitrust investigations.

    By Orcun Horozoglu and Enis Doga Kucukay, Associates, Kinstellar

  • Guleryuz Partners and Allen & Overy Advise on Tiryaki Agro USD 112.5 Million Financing from IFC, FMO, and Proparco

    Guleryuz Partners, working with the Galadari Law and Eversheds Sutherland, has advised the Tiryaki Group on its USD 112.5 million financing package from the IFC, FMO, and Proparco to finance an agro-industrial complex in Iraq’s Umm-Qasr Port. Allen & Overy, working with Confluent Law, advised the lenders.

    The agreed package includes loans up to: USD 66 million from the IFC; USD 31.5 million from the Dutch Entrepreneurial Development Bank; and USD 15 million from Agence Francaise de Developpement Group subsidiary Proparco.

    According to Guleryuz Partners, Tiryaki Agro is one of the leading agricultural exporters in Turkiye and the MENA region.

    According to Proparco, the project includes a soybean crushing plant and warehouses, which will help bolster food security, create jobs, and diversify the country’s economy away from fossil fuels.

    “We are building a soy crushing plant and corn warehouses in Tiryaki Group’s exclusive berth in the Umm-Qasr port of Iraq,” Tiryaki Agro CEO Suleyman Tiryakioglu commented. “The warehouses, which are part of the investment, have been completed and the soy crushing operations will begin in early 2024. With a daily crushing capacity of 3,000 tons, the soy crushing plant is expected to generate more than 700 million dollars of revenue annually, half of which will be generated through exports.”

    The Guleryuz Partners team was led by Partner Zahide Altunbas Sancak and Senior Associate Yasemin Keskin.

  • Turunc Advises Bogazici Ventures on Frozen Pawn Games Investment

    Turunc has advised Bogazici Ventures on its investment in the Frozen Pawn Games indie gaming company.

    Bogazici Ventures is a Turkish venture capital fund focused primarily on fintech, health tech, retail tech, and gaming. 

    The Turunc team included Managing Partner Kerem Turunc, Partner Yasemin Erden, and Associates Beste Yildizili Ergul, Naz Esen, Ovgu Kopal, Canberk Taze, and Baran Ezeli.