Board Game Copycat Runs Into Copyright Law: Court Orders Destruction of Infringing Products

Case Summary: The defendants produced and sold a near-identical copy of the plaintiffs' licensed strategy board game under a different name. The court found the game qualifies as a copyright-protected work and ordered the infringing products destroyed along with a TRY 40,000 attorney's fee award.

Background

The Turkish exclusive distributor of a foreign-developed strategy game discovered that multiple defendants were manufacturing and selling a virtually identical game under a different name. The plaintiffs filed suit under the Turkish Copyright Act (FSEK) for infringement and unfair competition.

Copyright Protection for Board Games

The defendants argued the game was a generic Viking-era folk game not eligible for copyright protection. The court rejected this argument. Multiple expert panels found the game's rules, strategy mechanics, and design elements to be substantially identical in both games. The court held that the game — together with its booklet and control piece — constitutes an original literary and scientific work under Article 2/1 FSEK, owing to its distinctive rules, strategic mechanics, and specific structure. It is also protectable as a design work under Article 4 FSEK.

Standing of the Exclusive Distributor

The court confirmed that the exclusive distributor has standing to sue, based on the authorization letter and license agreement granted by the foreign rights holder.

Key Legal Principles

• Board games can qualify as copyright-protected works under Article 2/1 FSEK if they exhibit sufficient originality; an "anonymous folk game" defense requires concrete supporting evidence.
• Infringement prevention claims under Article 69 FSEK do not require fault — they extend to distributors and retailers of infringing products.
• An exclusive distributor holding a proper license agreement may have standing to bring infringement claims.

Legal Notice: This article is a summary and commentary on a published court decision and does not constitute legal advice. Party and trademark names have been omitted for confidentiality.