The Textile Maker Who Didn't Register Its Design — A Kayseri Case

The case below recounts, through an anonymised example, a situation we frequently encounter in the textile sector at Asil. Names, brands and exact details are concealed; the aim is not to point at any firm but to make concrete the difference between a registered and an unregistered design.

The start — a good design

A mid-sized home-textile maker in Kayseri developed an original form and stitching pattern for a product family. The design was good: dealers responded well, and the first season sold above expectations. The firm poured its energy into production and sales. Design registration was on the "we'll handle it later" list.

"When a product takes off, everyone wonders 'will someone copy this?' But in the rush of sales, registration is always deferred. The problem is being too late when the copying actually happens."

A season later — a familiar form on the shelf

The next season, a product sold under another brand looked very similar to the maker's design: the same form logic, a similar stitching pattern, close proportions. When the maker came to us, the question was clear: "This is my design. Can I stop it?"

The decisive question here was: Was the design registered? It was not.

The difficulty of an unregistered design

Had you held a registered design, you would have had a date-stamped right grounded in the register; your basis in an infringement claim is clear. With an unregistered design, the burden of proof is entirely yours: you must prove that

• you created the design first,
• the other party knew or could have known this,
• the two designs are so similar as to be indistinguishable.

This evidence (dated design files, first sales records, fair photographs) is often scattered and, in a firm that says "we'll handle it later," not kept in order.

What was done, and what could not be

What we could do in the file was limited, but not nothing:

1. Compiling evidence: Whatever showed the date the design was created (first sample dates, dealer orders, the catalogue) was gathered.
2. An unfair-competition angle: We assessed that, even without a design registration, unfair-competition provisions could be argued on the concrete facts.
3. Forward protection: The maker's existing and new designs were registered immediately; the same gap was never left open again.

But we told the client plainly: had there been an early design registration, this process would have been the clear ground of an infringement action; unregistered, everything came down to proof and interpretation. "We defended the client but could not bring back the lost time" is the common summary of such files.

The lesson

• A design is registered before sales — not after the product takes off, because that is exactly when the copy arrives.
• Registration eases the burden of proof. With a registered right, your basis is the register; unregistered, you prove everything.
• A product family can be protected in one application. A multiple application covers a collection cost-effectively.
• A design alone is not enough. A trademark for the product's name and a design for its form should be taken together.

We covered the difference between registered and unregistered rights on the trademark side earlier in the unregistered-trademark case analysis; this case is the design side of the same lesson. You can find how design registration works in the design registration guide.

To protect your product design before it is too late, Asil Patent — under the agency of Salih Aksebzeci — runs the Industrial Design Registration and, where needed, defence processes together.

Sources

1. SMK 6769 arts. 55-81 (designs), art. 56 (novelty and individual character)
2. SMK 6769 — registered design right and infringement provisions

---

Author: Salih Aksebzeci · TÜRKPATENT Agent Registry No. 188 · Published: 2026-07-02