Intellectual Property Protection in Mobile Games: Where Does Inspiration End and Infringement Begin?

Türkiye has established itself as one of the leading players in the global mobile gaming industry. According to various industry reports, the Turkish mobile gaming market’s volume , while Turkish-based studios such as Peak Games, Gram Games, Rollic Games and Dream Games have achieved remarkable international success. As the industry continues to expand, so do the legal questions surrounding the creation, commercialisation and protection of mobile games.

Today, developing a successful mobile game involves far more than software development. Copyright, trademark protection, personal data, competition law and contractual arrangements all play an important role throughout a game’s lifecycle. Among these legal issues, one of the most challenging qu estions is where to draw the line between legitimate inspiration and unlawful copying.

When does a mobile game become a legal copy of another?

1. Mobile Games Are More Than Computer Programs

Answering this question requires an understanding of the legal nature of mobile games.

At first glance, a mobile game may appear to be nothing more than a computer program. However, modern games consist of much more than source code. Character designs, animations, user interfaces, visual assets, music, sound effects and other audiovisual elements together create the overall experience enjoyed by players.

Under the Turkish Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works (Law No 5846), computer programs qualify for copyright protection. However, copyright does not protect ideas, methods or algorithms themselves. Instead, protection extends only to the particular expression of those ideas. Consequently, developing a game based on a similar concept or gameplay mechanic does not automatically constitute copyright infringement.

This is precisely where mobile games differ from ordinary software products. Their commercial value often lies not only in the underlying code but also in the creative elements that shape the player’s overall experience.

Turkish case law reflects this broader approach. In its decision of 5 March 2019 (11th Civil Chamber, Case No 2017/4122, Decision No 2019/1845), the Court of Cassation acknowledged that digital games should not be assessed solely as computer programs. The court further endorsed the registration of digital games under the category of cinematographic works, recognising their audiovisual components as independently protectable creative elements. This approach reinforces the view that mobile games are complex works incorporating multiple layers of intellectual property protection, rather than merely software products.

2. Ideas Are Free, Expression Is Protected

One of the fundamental principles of copyright law is the idea-expression dichotomy.

Copyright does not grant exclusive rights over abstract ideas, gameplay concepts or game mechanics. Match-three puzzles, endless runner mechanics or city-building concepts remain available for everyone to use. Granting exclusivity over such ideas would significantly restrict creativity and competition within the gaming industry.

What copyright does protect, however, is the original expression of those ideas. Character artwork, graphical style, animations, user interfaces, music, sound design and other creative choices may all qualify for copyright protection, provided they meet the originality threshold.

Accordingly, two mobile games may legitimately share similar gameplay mechanics while remaining legally distinct. The legal assessment ultimately focuses on whether the protected creative expression, not merely the underlying concept, has been reproduced.

3. Why ‘‘Look and Feel’’ Matters

Recent disputes in the gaming industry increasingly demonstrate that copyright infringement claims rarely concern source code alone. Instead, much of the discussion now revolves around a game’s “look and feel”, the overall visual appearance and user experience perceived by players.

The concept goes beyond graphical similarities. It encompasses the arrangement of the user interface, colour schemes, animations, icons, transitions, sound effects, visual composition and the overall atmosphere created by the game. Although individual elements may not always be independently protectable, their particular combination may constitute an original creative expression.

For this reason, courts increasingly evaluate the overall impression created by a game rather than comparing isolated elements one by one. In many cases, the decisive question is no longer whether a specific mechanic has been copied, but whether the overall creative experience offered to the average player is substantially similar.

4. Lessons from the Turkish Mobile Gaming Industry

As Turkish game studios have gained international recognition, they have also become parties to cross-border intellectual property disputes.

One of the most notable examples is the dispute between Peak Games and Hasbro. Peak Games alleged that My Little Pony: Puzzle Party reproduced the visual design and overall user experience of its successful title Toy Blast. Although the dispute was ultimately resolved through a confidential settlement, it highlighted an important point: legal protection in the gaming industry extends beyond source code and may encompass the overall presentation of a game.

A similar dispute involving Voodoo and Rollic illustrates that game cloning allegations are no longer addressed solely before national courts. Copyright complaint mechanisms in the app stores operated by Apple and Google have become increasingly significant enforcement tools, particularly for hyper-casual games where even a temporary removal from digital marketplaces may result in substantial commercial losses.

These examples demonstrate that intellectual property disputes in the gaming industry often involve not only legal considerations but also significant commercial consequences. For studios operating in a market where success depends on rapid global scaling, a robust IP strategy is therefore not merely a legal safeguard but a commercial necessity.

5. Intellectual Property as a Business Asset

Intellectual property becomes relevant long before a dispute arises.

Investors and strategic buyers routinely conduct comprehensive IP due diligence before acquiring or investing in game studios. These reviews typically cover ownership of source code, copyright assignment agreements with employees and contractors, third-party asset licences, open-source software compliance, trademark portfolios and potential infringement risks.

Accordingly, a well-structured intellectual property strategy is not merely a defensive legal tool. It also plays a crucial role in company valuation, investment readiness and long-term international growth.

6. Conclusion

As the mobile gaming industry continues to evolve, intellectual property protection is becoming increasingly important.

The real challenge is not determining whether two games share similarities but striking the right balance between protecting creative expression and preserving healthy competition and innovation within the industry.

For mobile game developers, intellectual property is no longer simply about preventing infringement. It is a strategic business asset that enhances investment opportunities, strengthens competitive advantage and supports sustainable growth in an increasingly competitive global market.