Greek courts have quietly but decisively raised the bar for intellectual property enforcement over the past 18 months. Rights holders who built their protection strategy on earlier practice now face a measurably different environment – one that rewards rigorous pre-filing preparation and penalises gaps in IP registration or documentation.
Greek courts are applying stricter evidentiary standards in infringement claims, with particular scrutiny directed at trademark application records and the scope of Nice classification (the international system for classifying goods and services in trademark registration). Rights holders must demonstrate active use of their mark in each registered class. Companies without current, well-documented IP registration in Greece face a material risk of losing interim relief and, in some cases, seeing their infringement claims dismissed at the threshold stage.
This alert summarises the key developments, identifies the business categories most exposed, and sets out immediate actions international companies should take before mid-2026.
What has changed and when it took effect
Greek intellectual property legislation has long aligned with EU directives on trademark and copyright protection. What has shifted is not the statute – it is judicial interpretation and the procedural demands courts impose in practice.
From the second half of 2024 onward, Greek civil courts – including the first-instance courts in Athens and Thessaloniki – began requiring more granular evidence at the interim injunction stage. Claimants must now submit detailed proof of use for each Nice classification class claimed, not merely proof of registration. Courts have also tightened their scrutiny of opposition proceedings (the formal procedure by which a third party contests a pending trademark application before the Organismos Viomichanikis Idioktisias – OVI, the Industrial Property Organisation of Greece). Oppositions filed without thorough supporting documentation are being dismissed at a higher rate than before.
Separately, Greek courts are now more willing to award costs against rights holders whose infringement claims rest on poorly scoped registrations. This creates direct financial exposure for foreign companies that registered their marks in Greece years ago using broad class descriptions without subsequent maintenance filings.
For technology-related IP, courts have begun engaging more closely with questions arising under Greek AI and technology legislation – particularly where algorithms or training datasets are involved in alleged copying. The intersection of copyright and AI output is reaching the Greek docket, and early decisions signal a cautious but restrictive reading of fair-use analogues under Greek intellectual property law.
Rights holders operating in Greece through distributors or licensees face an additional complication. Courts are requiring evidence that the licensee's use of the mark falls within the scope of the original IP registration. Where licence agreements are silent on classification scope, courts have declined to extend protection beyond the narrowest interpretation of the registered class.
To understand how these developments interact with AI and technology regulation in Greece, particularly for software and algorithm-related IP disputes, a separate assessment may be warranted depending on your sector.
Who is affected and what the threshold criteria are
The following business categories carry the highest exposure under the current enforcement conditions in Greece.
Consumer goods and retail brands with Greek trademark registrations that have not been reviewed or maintained in the past five years. Courts are treating dormant registrations as vulnerable to non-use challenges, even where the brand is actively sold in the Greek market by a local distributor.
Technology companies and software vendors whose IP portfolios include copyright claims over code, interfaces, or datasets. The tightened evidentiary standard applies here with particular force, as courts now expect rights holders to specify the protected elements with precision.
Pharmaceutical and life sciences companies holding product-specific trademark registrations. Shifts in Nice classification interpretation affect multi-class filings common in this sector.
Media, publishing, and entertainment businesses that rely on copyright enforcement rather than trademark. Courts are applying a stricter chain-of-title standard: claimants must trace ownership clearly from creation through any assignments or licences.
Franchise and licensing networks operating in Greece through local partners. The licence-scope scrutiny described above directly affects this model. If your franchise agreement does not expressly address Nice classification scope and territorial use, an infringement claim by your licensee on your behalf carries meaningful procedural risk.
The threshold criterion for heightened risk is straightforward: any company whose Greek IP registration has not been reviewed, updated. Alternatively. Supplemented with use evidence in the past three years should treat that portfolio as potentially compromised for enforcement purposes.
For a comprehensive assessment of your intellectual property position in Greece, including registration gaps and enforcement readiness, contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
Immediate actions for international companies
The compliance window is narrow. Companies seeking to preserve enforcement options in Greece before the next judicial term should move on the following actions without delay.
- Audit your Greek IP registration portfolio. Confirm that every trademark application and registration is current, that the Nice classification scope reflects actual commercial use, and that renewal deadlines have not been missed. Gaps identified now can often be remedied before an infringement dispute arises.
- Compile and preserve use evidence by class. For each registered class, gather invoices, marketing materials, packaging, and sales records that demonstrate genuine use in Greece. Courts expect this material to be ready at the time of filing, not assembled under time pressure after a claim is brought.
- Review active or anticipated opposition proceedings. If you have filed an opposition against a conflicting trademark application before OVI, assess whether your supporting documentation meets the current evidentiary standard. Underdocumented oppositions are being dismissed, and a failed opposition can weaken a subsequent infringement claim.
- Audit licence and distribution agreements. Confirm that agreements through which third parties use your Greek IP expressly define the permitted Nice classification scope and territorial boundaries. Amend agreements where the scope is ambiguous before a dispute arises.
- Map any AI or algorithm-related IP to the current legislative regime. If your products or services involve software, training data, or AI-generated output, obtain advice on how Greek intellectual property law currently treats those assets – and whether additional registration or contractual protection is advisable.
Companies with pending infringement claims or contemplating new enforcement action in Greece should request an immediate procedural review. The evidentiary changes described in this alert affect claims already in progress, not only future filings. Engaging a lawyer in Greece with current IP enforcement experience is the most direct way to assess exposure before it crystallises into adverse procedural outcomes.
About Ferraz & Whitmore
Ferraz & Whitmore is an international law firm based in Lisbon, advising business clients across 46 jurisdictions. As a law firm in Greece and across Europe, our IP practice supports international companies in trademark application strategy, opposition proceedings, infringement claims, and IP registration portfolio management. Our team combines Portuguese civil law expertise with English common law tradition, giving us a practical perspective on enforcement across both EU and common law systems. We work with technology companies, consumer brands, pharmaceutical groups, and media businesses that need results-oriented counsel across multiple legal systems. To discuss your Greek IP enforcement position, contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
Disclaimer: This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. Ferraz & Whitmore assumes no liability for actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this material. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@ferrazwhitmore.com.