In today's world, the first point of contact between a business and a consumer is not merely the packaging of the product it sells or the logo it carries; it is also the physical space where the service is provided. The wood-and-green texture you feel as soon as you step inside a coffee chain, the iconic architecture of a gas station spotted from afar, or the glass-fronted minimalist store design of a tech giant directly points the consumer's mind to the source of that business.
Well, how does the law protect this originality in the event that architectural elements and spatial concepts are imitated? Although the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works (Copyright Law) is the first area that comes to mind, the copyright protection of architectural structures is limited by a question inherent to the nature of architecture: is architecture art?
The Limits of Copyright Law: The Line Between "Art" and "Function"
Architectural structures can be protected under the Copyright Law under the heading of "Fine Art Works" or "Scientific and Literary Works" (plans, projects). However, the biggest obstacle to this protection is the technical and functional necessities the building entails. Columns that keep a building standing, windows designed to let in daylight, or the kitchen-dining layout of a restaurant are mostly architectural necessities, rather than "aesthetic creativity." The Supreme Court of Appeals, in its settled case-law, requires a building to possess a high degree of originality and aesthetic value that goes beyond the ordinary in order to benefit from copyright protection.
At the exact point where copyright law narrows due to the element of functionality, the unfair competition provisions of the Industrial Property Code (IPC) and the Turkish Commercial Code (TCC) become the remedy for businesses seeking to protect their architectural designs from unfair imitation by competitors.
Can an Architectural Structure Be a Trademark?
Article 5 of the Industrial Property Code No. 6769 requires a sign to be "distinctive" and "capable of being represented on the register" to become a trademark. The law clearly stipulates that, besides words, shapes, and packaging, the goods or their presentation can also be trademarks. Therefore, the exterior architecture of a building or the interior design of a store can be registered as a 3D shape mark or a position mark within the meaning of the IPC.
The global boundary line for this issue is the European Court of Justice (ECJ) Apple Store decision (C-421/13). Apple Inc. wanted to register its in-store design consisting of a color drawing for "retail store services" in Germany, but this request was rejected by the German Patent and Trade Mark Office. When the dispute was brought before the ECJ, the court determined three basic criteria that frame the branding process of spatial designs:
Sign Character and Representability: The ECJ accepted that a store design consisting of lines, contours, and colors constitutes a physical "sign" and can be clearly shown in the register. Thus, the capacity of abstract spatial designs to become trademarks was legally established.
Function of Indicating the Source of the Service: The most crucial point of the decision is whether the spatial design indicates a "source" to the consumer. The Court ruled that lines, colors, and furniture placement (transparent glass facade, symmetrical wooden tables, technical service area in the back) come together to create a holistic visual effect, and this effect shows that the relevant service directly belongs to Apple, not to another business.
Condition of Departing from the Nature of the Good/Service: The ECJ underlined that not every store layout can be registered automatically. For a spatial design to become a trademark, it must significantly diverge from the generally accepted economic habits and standard, ordinary store designs in that sector, and possess a unique originality.
However, this expansion is balanced by the "functionality barrier," the strictest hurdle in trademark law. Pursuant to Article 5/1-(e) of the IPC, shapes that result from the nature of the goods or services themselves, shapes that are necessary to obtain a technical result, or shapes that give substantial value to the goods/services cannot be registered as trademarks.
As discussed in the Apple Store decision, if an architectural element or interior design is merely a technical/ergonomic necessity for carrying out retail activities (for example, the height of a checkout counter or the standard function of shelves where products are displayed), it cannot receive trademark protection alone. What is protected is the combination of these functional elements in a way that departs from the ordinary to create an "original, distinctive, and holistic trade dress." Through this holistic composition, Apple overcame the functionality barrier and obtained trademark protection over the "layout of the retail space."
Protection of Unregistered Architectural Concepts: Trade Dress
The holistic image created by the interior and exterior architectural design, color combinations, decoration, and overall "atmosphere" of a business is called trade dress. Businesses may not always have registered these architectural concepts as trademarks. In this case, the Unfair Competition provisions of the Turkish Commercial Code come into play (TCC Art. 55).
Especially in Turkey, the very similar interior space concepts of "third-wave" coffee chains, boutique burger shops, or gas stations (Shell, Opet, etc., canopy and market layouts) frequently raise questions. In case of imitation of an unregistered architectural concept, two basic conditions are sought to benefit from unfair competition protection:
Acquired Distinctiveness: The consumer must have associated that structure with the business to such an extent that the moment they see that color combination and architectural layout, they can say "This is a branch of brand X" without even reading the sign.
Likelihood of Confusion: The competitor's architectural concept must be so similar that it creates a perception in the average consumer that there is an economic or organic link between those two businesses.
Conclusion
In the legal protection of architectural structures, copyright is generally confined to a narrow area due to the functional nature of the building. In contrast, the IPC and TCC treat architecture not merely as a static structure, but as a living identity that indicates a commercial source. The clear boundaries drawn by the European Court of Justice with the Apple Store decision and the tripartite test it introduced have made the place of spatial design permanent in industrial property protection. In the future, at the center of lawsuits filed against unfair imitations of buildings and spatial designs will not be the Copyright Law; but rather the trademark provisions of the IPC and the unfair competition rules of the TCC preventing unfair advantage.
