A European consumer goods brand enters Greece, invests in market development, and then discovers that a local operator has been trading under a near-identical name for several months. The window for action is narrow. Delay risks market confusion hardening into accepted practice – and the opportunity to recover the brand position can be permanently lost.
This case study examines how Ferraz & Whitmore structured an enforcement strategy for a cross-border trademark dispute in Greece. The matter involved an infringement claim against a locally established competitor, pursued through Greek intellectual property legislation and coordinated EU trademark mechanisms. The process from initial assessment to a substantive resolution took approximately fourteen months.
The following sections outline the client's situation, the strategic choices made, key procedural milestones, complications encountered, and the lessons applicable to similar cross-border matters in Greece.
Client profile and the challenge
The client was a mid-sized technology accessories company incorporated in a Northern European jurisdiction. The company held a registered EU trademark across multiple product categories under the relevant Nice classification (the international system for classifying goods and services in trademark applications) covering electronics and retail services.
The client had recently entered the Greek market through a distribution arrangement. Within several months, it identified a Greek competitor using a sign that was visually and phonetically similar to its registered mark. The competitor had filed a domestic trademark application with the Organismos Viomichanikis Idioktisias (OVI, the Greek Industrial Property Organisation) covering overlapping Nice classification categories.
The core challenge was twofold. First, the client needed to halt an active IP registration process before it completed. Second, it needed to establish infringement liability for use already occurring in the market. Both tracks required simultaneous action under Greek intellectual property legislation and the EU trademark system.
For clients managing intellectual property matters in Greece, the interaction between domestic OVI procedures and EU-level protection is frequently underestimated. The two systems operate in parallel but with distinct timelines and procedural rules.
Strategy: parallel tracks and rationale
The team assessed three possible approaches. The first was a cease-and-desist letter alone. The second was direct civil litigation in the Greek courts. The third was a combined strategy: opposition proceedings at OVI against the pending trademark application, simultaneous with a civil infringement claim before the competent Greek court.
The cease-and-desist route was evaluated and set aside as the primary instrument. Greek intellectual property legislation does not require a pre-litigation notice to initiate civil proceedings. A letter sent without parallel action frequently alerts the opposing party without producing a settlement. The competitor in this matter had already demonstrated a willingness to invest in local IP registration, signalling an intent to establish a defended position.
Civil litigation alone, without addressing the pending trademark application, would have left the competitor free to register the mark. A successful registration, even subsequently challenged, would have complicated interim relief applications and given the competitor a basis to assert co-existence rights.
The dual-track approach was therefore adopted. Opposition proceedings were filed at OVI within the statutory opposition window. This window – measured in months from the publication date of the application – is strictly observed under Greek IP registration rules. Simultaneously, an infringement claim was prepared for submission to the Athens courts, which hold designated competence for EU trademark matters in Greece.
The strategy also incorporated an application for interim measures. Under Greek civil procedure rules, a rights holder may seek urgent interim relief to restrain continued use pending a final decision. This instrument was central to the plan: a successful interim order would remove the competitor's product from active circulation while the main proceedings progressed.
Key milestones and complications encountered
The opposition was filed within six weeks of the initial instruction. OVI acknowledged receipt and commenced the formal examination process. The opposing party submitted observations disputing the likelihood of confusion between the marks. The OVI panel assessed the marks under the applicable similarity criteria, including visual, phonetic, and conceptual dimensions across the relevant Nice classification categories.
The interim measures application was heard by the Athens court approximately three months after filing. The court required evidence of both the validity of the EU trademark and the likelihood of confusion. Affidavit evidence from Greek market participants was gathered to demonstrate actual consumer confusion. The court granted a partial interim order, restraining the competitor from using the disputed sign in connection with the overlapping product categories pending the main hearing.
A significant complication arose mid-process. The competitor sought to invalidate the client's EU trademark registration on the basis of alleged non-use in Greece. Under EU trademark legislation, a mark is vulnerable to cancellation if it has not been put to genuine use within the EU for a continuous period. The client had entered Greece only recently. Demonstrating genuine use required assembling commercial documentation – invoices, marketing materials, distribution records – across multiple EU territories to establish that the mark had been actively deployed at the EU level.
This non-use challenge added approximately three months to the timeline and required coordination with the client's internal teams across three jurisdictions. The documentation ultimately assembled was sufficient to defeat the challenge at the preliminary stage, but the episode illustrated a risk that many rights holders entering new markets do not anticipate.
A secondary complication involved translation and certification requirements. Greek procedural rules require documents originating outside Greece to be accompanied by certified Greek translations. Several evidentiary documents submitted in the main proceedings required re-translation after an initial submission was rejected for technical non-compliance. This caused a delay of several weeks and underscored the importance of procedural preparation in cross-border IP enforcement.
To explore how similar IP enforcement considerations arise in technology-adjacent contexts, the firm's analysis of AI and technology law in Greece addresses overlapping regulatory and IP questions relevant to digital product companies.
Transferable lessons for cross-border trademark matters in Greece
Act within the opposition window. The opposition period against a published Greek trademark application is fixed. Missing it forecloses the administrative route entirely, leaving only the more costly and slower path of a cancellation action before the courts. Rights holders monitoring new markets must have a watch system in place that triggers within days of a conflicting publication, not weeks.
Establish genuine use across the EU before entering a new market. The non-use vulnerability exposed in this matter is common. A brand that expands into Greece after years of trading elsewhere in the EU may still face a well-targeted non-use challenge if its evidentiary record is incomplete. Assembling and preserving use evidence – commercial invoices, advertising records, sales data – across multiple EU jurisdictions should be treated as an ongoing compliance obligation, not a reactive task.
Coordinate the administrative and judicial tracks from the outset. In Greece, as in most EU member states, opposition proceedings and civil infringement claims operate independently. A success in one does not automatically resolve the other. The timeline of each track must be managed together, and interim relief applications should be timed to maximise the evidentiary record available to the court.
For reference, the firm has documented comparable strategic considerations in a related matter involving cross-border trademark proceedings in Portugal, where parallel administrative and judicial mechanisms present similar coordination challenges.
To discuss how this enforcement approach may apply to your IP position in Greece, contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
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 team combines Portuguese civil law expertise with English common law tradition to deliver cross-border legal solutions in trademark enforcement, IP registration strategy, and infringement claims. Our intellectual property practice covers trademark application, opposition proceedings, and litigation across both EU and national systems. We work with technology companies, consumer brands, and institutional investors who require results-oriented counsel across multiple legal systems. The firm's attorneys have advised on IP registration and infringement matters before the OVI, the Athens courts, and the EU Intellectual Property Office. Engaging a lawyer in Greece with cross-border experience means your EU trademark position is protected at every procedural stage. To discuss your trademark situation in Greece, 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.