A European technology company discovered that a local Greek entity had filed a near-identical trademark application for the client's core brand name. The filing preceded the client's own Greek IP registration by several weeks. The client risked losing exclusive rights to a mark it had used commercially across multiple jurisdictions for years. Every month without resolution meant lost revenue, blocked market entry, and a growing window for infringement.
IP portfolio recovery in Greece involving a bad-faith registration requires challenging the conflicting trademark before the Organismos Viomichanikis Idioktisias (OVI. the Industrial Property Organisation of Greece) through formal opposition proceedings or an administrative cancellation action. The key legal basis is demonstrating that the registrant acted without genuine commercial intent and with prior knowledge of the legitimate owner's mark. A well-structured case typically reaches a first administrative decision within six to twelve months of filing.
This case study outlines the client profile, the legal strategy deployed, the complications encountered, the outcome category achieved, and three transferable lessons for businesses facing similar cross-border IP disputes in Greece.
Client profile and the challenge
The client was a mid-sized technology business headquartered in Western Europe. It had operated under its brand in multiple EU markets for over a decade. Its products were sold through digital channels, including several targeting Greek consumers.
Despite this established commercial presence, the client had not yet filed a standalone Greek trademark application. It relied on an EU-wide IP registration as its primary protection. When a Greek-registered entity filed a local trademark application covering overlapping goods and services under the relevant Nice classification (Nice classification. the international system for categorising goods and services in trademark applications). The client's position became vulnerable.
The risk was concrete. A granted local registration would allow the Greek registrant to block the client's products from the Greek market and pursue an infringement claim against the client's existing operations there. Time was critical. The window for filing opposition proceedings is fixed under Greek intellectual property legislation, and missing it would foreclose the most efficient route to recovery.
For more detail on the underlying IP registration regime and available remedies, see our overview of intellectual property services in Greece.
Legal strategy and key milestones
The firm's first action was a rapid evidentiary audit. The team gathered documentation establishing the client's prior use of the mark – sales records, marketing materials, domain registration timestamps, and third-party press coverage – across EU markets, including Greece-facing commercial activity.
The strategy centred on two parallel tracks. First, a formal opposition was filed before OVI within the statutory period. The opposition relied on the client's earlier EU-wide IP registration as a senior right. Second, the team prepared a bad-faith submission as a supplementary ground. This required demonstrating that the Greek registrant had actual or constructive knowledge of the client's mark before filing its own trademark application.
Key milestones unfolded as follows. The opposition was filed within five weeks of instruction. OVI acknowledged receipt and issued a formal notice to the opposing party within the standard processing window. The Greek registrant responded with a substantive counter-submission, which extended the administrative timetable. The firm prepared a detailed reply addressing each counter-argument. OVI issued its preliminary assessment approximately eight months after the opposition was lodged.
Businesses dealing with technology-related IP assets in Greece may also encounter regulatory considerations covered in our analysis of AI and technology law in Greece.
Complications encountered
Three complications shaped the timeline and approach.
The first was the evidentiary gap created by the client's reliance on an EU-wide registration rather than a standalone Greek filing. Under Greek intellectual property legislation, an EU mark provides a valid earlier right for opposition purposes. However, proving genuine use within Greece specifically required additional documentation. The client had no Greek-language marketing materials and limited Greek-market sales records. The team addressed this by aggregating digital analytics data showing Greek-user engagement with the client's platform.
The second complication involved the bad-faith argument. Bad faith is a recognised ground under Greek IP law and is aligned with EU-wide intellectual property legislation. Establishing it requires more than showing that the registrant knew of a similar mark. The team needed to demonstrate that the registrant lacked any plausible legitimate commercial reason for choosing that particular sign. Correspondence obtained through the administrative file disclosed that the registrant had no prior trading history in the relevant sector – a significant evidential point.
The third complication was procedural. OVI's examination timelines extended beyond initial estimates due to case backlog. This required the client to maintain a temporary holding strategy in the Greek market. limiting certain promotional activities to avoid any conduct that could be characterised as infringement by the registrant. while the administrative process ran its course.
Outcome and transferable lessons
OVI upheld the opposition on the basis of the client's earlier EU-wide right. The bad-faith ground was noted as a reinforcing factor in the administrative decision. The Greek trademark application was refused registration. The client was able to proceed with its own standalone Greek trademark application without conflict.
To discuss a comparable IP recovery situation in Greece or another jurisdiction, contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
Three lessons transfer directly to similar cross-border matters.
First: file nationally before entering a market, not after. An EU-wide IP registration provides a valid earlier right for opposition, but it creates an evidentiary burden that a national filing avoids. Businesses planning Greek market entry should secure a standalone Greek trademark application as a concurrent step – not a subsequent one. The cost of doing so is far lower than the cost of opposition proceedings.
Second: act within the opposition window without delay. Greek intellectual property legislation sets a fixed period for filing opposition proceedings once a conflicting application is published. Missing that window does not eliminate all remedies, but it removes the most direct and cost-efficient route. Monitoring competitor trademark applications in Greece – and in key EU markets generally – is a practical tool that businesses with established brands should deploy systematically.
Third: build the bad-faith case from the outset. Bad faith as a legal ground strengthens an opposition materially when the prior-rights argument alone may face evidentiary complications. Establishing bad faith requires early investigation of the opposing registrant's commercial history and filing conduct. Waiting until the opposition is already underway to develop this ground wastes time and weakens the submission.
A parallel case addressing IP portfolio recovery in Portugal is available in our case study on IP recovery in Portugal, which covers comparable opposition strategy under Portuguese intellectual property legislation.
About Ferraz & Whitmore
Ferraz & Whitmore is an international law firm based in Lisbon, advising business clients across 46 jurisdictions. Our IP practice supports technology companies, brand owners, and institutional investors in protecting and recovering IP assets across both civil law and common law systems. In Greece, our team advises on trademark application strategy, opposition proceedings, infringement claims, and cross-border enforcement. The firm's attorneys have experience before OVI and in coordinating multi-jurisdictional IP disputes across EU member states. As a law firm in Greece and across Europe, we combine Portuguese civil law expertise with English common law tradition to deliver results-oriented counsel. Engaging a lawyer in Greece with cross-border IP experience is particularly important when EU-wide rights and national registrations interact. To explore legal options for IP portfolio protection in Greece, schedule a consultation 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.