A pharmaceutical distributor sources branded medicines in Poland at significantly lower prices and ships them to Greece for resale. The trademark owner in Athens discovers the imports within weeks and weighs an infringement claim. The distributor, confident in EU free movement principles, presses ahead regardless. Each side believes the law supports its position – and, in certain circumstances, both are partly right. That tension sits at the heart of parallel import law in Greece.
Parallel import and IP rights exhaustion in Greece are governed by the EU regional exhaustion principle, implemented through Greek intellectual property legislation and directly applicable EU regulations on trademarks and related rights. Once a rights holder places goods on the EU or EEA market with consent, the right to control onward circulation within that area is exhausted. However, exhaustion does not apply to goods first marketed outside the EU, and specific conditions – including repackaging and adequate notice – can revive the rights holder's ability to prevent circulation even within the EEA.
This analysis examines the doctrinal foundations, competing interpretations in Greek case law, the gap between the statute and practice. Cross-border implications for international rights holders. Additionally, the strategic options available to both brand owners and parallel importers operating in or through Greece.
Doctrinal foundations: exhaustion in the EU and Greek legal context
The exhaustion doctrine rests on a fundamental tension. Intellectual property legislation grants rights holders exclusive control over the commercialisation of protected goods. Free movement rules, however, prohibit member states from erecting barriers to intra-EU trade. The EU resolved this tension through the concept of regional exhaustion.
Under the regional exhaustion model, an IP right is exhausted. that is. The holder loses the right to object to further distribution. once the protected goods are placed on the market anywhere within the EU or EEA by the rights holder or with that holder's consent. This applies across trademark law, copyright legislation for tangible copies, and related rights. The principle does not extend beyond the EEA: goods first placed on the market in, say. Turkey or the United States do not trigger exhaustion in Greece, regardless of the rights holder's involvement in that transaction.
Greece has implemented this doctrine through its national intellectual property legislation, which aligns expressly with EU directives on trademarks and related rights. Greek courts apply it alongside directly applicable EU trademark regulations. The result is a multi-layered body of law: Greek statutory provisions, EU-harmonised rules, and a rich body of guidance from the Court of Justice of the European Union that Greek courts are obliged to follow.
For trademark registration purposes, a rights holder seeking protection in Greece must complete an aitisi katathesis (trademark application) before the Organismos Viotechnikis Idioktisias (Greek Industrial Property Organisation, OBI). Classification of goods and services follows the Nice Classification system – the international framework used by OBI and trademark offices across all EU member states. The scope of that registered protection directly defines the territory within which exhaustion questions arise. A rights holder with a registered Greek trademark, or an EU trademark covering Greece, can assert rights against parallel importers only in respect of the goods and services covered by the relevant Nice Classification classes.
One doctrinal point frequently misunderstood by international clients is the distinction between consent given for a specific market and consent given generally. The Court of Justice has consistently held that the rights holder's consent to placing goods on the market in one EU member state constitutes consent for the entire EEA. However, where the goods were placed on the market outside the EEA – even by the rights holder itself – that act does not exhaust EU rights. Greek courts have applied this distinction carefully, and practitioners regularly encounter disputes where the primary factual question is whether first marketing occurred inside or outside the EEA.
Competing interpretations in Greek court practice
Greek case law on parallel imports reflects the broader divergence visible across EU member states. However. With certain distinctive features rooted in the Greek civil law tradition and the particular commercial realities of sectors such as pharmaceuticals, luxury goods, and branded consumer products.
Greek courts of first instance – the Monomeles Protodikeio (Single-Member Court of First Instance) and the Polymeles Protodikeio (Multi-Member Court of First Instance) – handle the majority of IP infringement claims involving parallel imports. The Efeteio (Court of Appeal) reviews first-instance decisions, and the Areios Pagos (Supreme Court of Greece) provides the authoritative interpretation of national intellectual property legislation consistent with EU law.
Two lines of reasoning appear repeatedly in Greek court decisions on parallel imports. The first holds that exhaustion is automatic and unconditional once the rights holder or a licensee has placed goods on any EEA market with consent. Under this approach, the parallel importer needs only to prove first marketing within the EEA and the rights holder's direct or indirect involvement. Greek courts applying this line grant injunctions only where additional conditions – typically involving repackaging – are present.
The second line of reasoning takes a more rights-holder-friendly approach. It emphasises that the burden of proving EEA first marketing falls on the parallel importer, and that ambiguity about the origin of a consignment can suffice to maintain an interim injunction. This approach has particular force in disputes involving goods with complex supply chains, where documentary evidence of EEA first marketing is incomplete or contested.
The repackaging doctrine represents the most active area of Greek litigation in this field. Where a parallel importer repackages or relabels branded goods – a common practice in the pharmaceutical sector – the rights holder may object to circulation even within the EEA, provided specific conditions are met. Greek courts, following EU guidance. Require that: the repackaging is objectively necessary to access the market. the original condition of the goods is not adversely affected. the new packaging clearly identifies the repackager. and the importer provides the rights holder with advance notice before offering the repackaged goods for sale. Failure on any of these points exposes the importer to an infringement claim before Greek courts.
In practice, the notice requirement generates the greatest volume of disputes. Greek courts have held that notice must be given sufficiently in advance to allow the rights holder to inspect the repackaged goods. What constitutes sufficient advance notice has not been defined by statute, and case law reveals variation across different courts and sectors. Rights holders have successfully obtained interim injunctions. asfalistika metra (provisional measures under Greek civil procedure). on the sole ground that notice was not given in adequate time, even where the repackaging itself was technically compliant.
For rights holders, this procedural leverage is valuable. Interim relief in Greece can be obtained relatively quickly through the provisional measures procedure, which operates on a lower standard of proof than full merits proceedings. A rights holder demonstrating urgency and a prima facie infringement – for example, goods reaching pharmacy shelves without prior notice – can obtain an injunction within weeks. This creates immediate commercial pressure on the parallel importer before the underlying exhaustion question is resolved on the merits.
To discuss how an infringement claim and provisional measures strategy can protect your IP position in Greece, contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
The gap between statute and practice: where rights holders lose ground
The statutory position in Greece is relatively clear. Exhaustion applies within the EEA; it does not apply outside it; and repackaging triggers specific procedural obligations for the importer. In practice, however, rights holders frequently encounter a significant gap between what the legislation provides and what they can effectively enforce.
The first gap arises in evidence gathering. Establishing that goods were first marketed outside the EEA requires tracing the supply chain back to the point of first sale. Where a parallel importer acquires goods through intermediaries – as is common in grey market supply chains – documentary proof of the original marketing territory is difficult to obtain. Greek courts have grappled with how to allocate the burden of proof in these situations. The dominant approach, consistent with EU case law, places the burden on the importer to establish EEA first marketing once the rights holder raises a credible claim of extra-EEA origin. However, in practice, importers frequently provide partial documentation that courts accept as sufficient, leaving rights holders without the clear victory the statute would seem to promise.
The second gap arises from the time and cost of full merits proceedings. An IP infringement claim before Greek civil courts typically runs for one to three years at first instance, with appellate proceedings adding further time. Interim injunctions provide temporary relief, but they can be challenged and lifted if the importer provides a satisfactory undertaking or security. Rights holders who rely exclusively on litigation to control parallel imports often find that the commercial damage. price erosion, distribution channel disruption, brand dilution in the Greek market. accumulates faster than the courts can respond.
A third gap involves opposition proceedings at the registration stage. Where a parallel importer attempts to register its own trademark covering the imported goods – an unusual but documented tactic in certain sectors – the original rights holder must file opposition proceedings before OBI. The opposition procedure requires careful attention to deadlines, evidence of earlier rights, and the scope of the Nice Classification classes covering the goods in question. Missing an opposition window can result in a registered right that complicates future enforcement considerably. Practitioners recommend systematic monitoring of IP registration activity at OBI as part of any ongoing Greece market strategy.
The fourth gap involves the interaction between IP law and competition legislation. A rights holder that uses IP rights to partition the EU internal market. for example, by using exhaustion arguments selectively to create artificial price differentials between member states – risks scrutiny under EU competition law. Greek competition authorities and courts have the ability to consider whether an IP enforcement strategy constitutes an abuse of market position. This does not undermine the fundamental validity of exhaustion doctrine, but it adds a layer of risk for rights holders with dominant market positions who pursue particularly aggressive anti-parallel import strategies.
For companies managing their intellectual property rights in Greece, understanding this gap between statutory rights and practical enforcement is essential to calibrating both the commercial strategy and the litigation budget.
Cross-border implications for European clients
For international clients operating across multiple EU jurisdictions, Greece presents a specific set of cross-border considerations that go beyond the standard EU exhaustion analysis.
Greece occupies a distinctive geographic position. It sits at the intersection of EU, Balkan, and Eastern Mediterranean trade routes. Goods enter and leave Greece through ports such as Piraeus – one of the busiest container terminals in the Mediterranean – and through land borders with Bulgaria, North Macedonia, Albania, and Turkey. The practical consequence is that parallel import routes into Greece frequently originate outside the EEA, either directly or through transit points where chain-of-title documentation is incomplete.
For a rights holder whose products are distributed in Turkey, the Middle East, or North Africa, Greece is a natural point of first EU entry for grey market goods. The legal position is clear: goods first marketed in those territories do not trigger EU exhaustion. But the evidentiary challenge of proving non-EEA first marketing in a Greek court – against an importer who may have restructured the transaction to obscure the trail – is real and should not be underestimated.
Cross-border enforcement also involves the interaction between Greek national rights and EU trademarks. A rights holder relying on an EU trademark covers all 27 member states with a single registration. An infringement finding in Greece, or a provisional measure obtained before a Greek court in respect of an EU trademark, has implications for the broader EU distribution network. Courts in Greece have jurisdiction to hear EU trademark infringement claims in their capacity as EU trademark courts. Additionally. Their decisions on exhaustion can interact with proceedings in other member states where the same parallel import route is active.
The pharmaceutical sector merits specific mention. Greece has historically experienced significant parallel pharmaceutical trade, driven by price differentials between member states. EU pharmaceutical legislation imposes additional regulatory requirements on parallel importers – including product licensing and parallel import permits – that sit alongside the IP exhaustion analysis. A parallel importer that holds the required regulatory authorisations may still face an IP infringement claim if the repackaging conditions are not met. Conversely, a rights holder that blocks parallel pharmaceutical imports on IP grounds while holding a dominant position risks regulatory and competition scrutiny. The intersection of intellectual property legislation, pharmaceutical regulation, and competition law makes this sector among the most complex areas of Greek IP practice.
Rights holders managing EU-wide brand strategies should also consider how Greece fits into a broader EU enforcement programme. Practitioners note that obtaining a favourable precedent in Greece. for example, a Supreme Court ruling clarifying the notice requirements for pharmaceutical repackaging. can strengthen the rights holder's position in parallel proceedings elsewhere in the EU. Even though decisions of the Greek Supreme Court are not formally binding on courts in other member states.
The intersection of IP exhaustion with emerging technology also warrants attention. Digital goods and software distributed through online channels raise distinct exhaustion questions that Greek courts are beginning to address. The principles applicable to tangible goods do not transfer automatically to digital copies, and the applicable EU legislation treats digital and physical distribution differently. Businesses at the intersection of IP and digital distribution in Greece may also wish to review our analysis of AI and technology law in Greece, where overlapping IP and regulatory questions arise.
For a tailored strategy on parallel import management and IP rights protection across EU jurisdictions, reach out to info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
Strategic recommendations and outlook
The strategic posture available to a rights holder in Greece depends substantially on its market position, the sectors in which it operates, and the specific parallel import routes it faces. Several principles, however, apply broadly.
Document the first marketing territory consistently. Rights holders who sell into non-EEA markets should maintain clear and accessible records showing where goods were first placed on the market. This documentation becomes the foundation of any Greek court proceedings challenging exhaustion. Where supply chains are complex, contractual provisions requiring distributors to maintain chain-of-title records, and to notify the rights holder of any onward distribution to the EEA, provide an additional evidentiary layer.
Establish a notice-monitoring system. In sectors where repackaging is anticipated. pharmaceuticals above all. However. Also cosmetics and certain consumer goods. rights holders should establish a system for receiving and responding to advance notices from parallel importers. A systematic response protocol allows the rights holder to inspect repackaged goods promptly, identify non-compliant repackaging quickly, and move to interim injunction proceedings with a well-documented factual record.
Use trademark registration strategically. Ensuring that Greek and EU trademark registrations cover all relevant Nice Classification classes for the goods in question. and monitoring OBI registration activity for potentially conflicting applications. reduces the risk of a parallel importer acquiring rights that complicate future enforcement. The trademark application and opposition proceedings system at OBI offers proactive tools that rights holders should use continuously, not only when a dispute has already arisen.
Calibrate litigation against commercial objectives. Full merits proceedings in Greece are time-consuming and should be pursued where the rights holder has a clear factual record and a significant commercial interest at stake. Interim provisional measures are the preferred first response in most parallel import disputes. They create immediate commercial pressure and often lead to negotiated settlement before the exhaustion question is resolved on its merits. Where the parallel importer is a systematic operator using Greece as an EEA entry point. A coordinated multi-jurisdiction strategy. combining Greek proceedings with customs detention and enforcement in other member states. is often more effective than single-jurisdiction litigation.
Monitor the regulatory trajectory. The European Commission has signalled ongoing interest in the interaction between IP rights and market integration, particularly in the pharmaceutical and digital sectors. Proposed and adopted EU measures that affect exhaustion doctrine or parallel trade regulation will apply directly in Greece. Rights holders and parallel importers alike should monitor EU legislative developments in this area, as shifts at the EU level can materially change the legal calculus in Greece within a short period. The Court of Justice continues to refine the conditions under which repackaging is permissible, and each major ruling recalibrates the rights-holder-versus-importer balance in all member states, including Greece.
Our comparative analysis of parallel import and IP rights exhaustion in Portugal provides a useful reference point for companies managing coordinated IP strategies across Iberian and southeastern European markets simultaneously.
Frequently asked questions
Q: Does an IP rights holder in Greece have any way to block parallel imports from within the EU?
A: Under the EU regional exhaustion principle, an IP rights holder generally cannot block parallel imports once goods have been placed on the market in any EU member state with the holder's consent. However, where the rights holder can demonstrate that repackaging, relabelling. Alternatively, other modifications impair the original condition of the goods. Alternatively. That the importer has not given adequate prior notice, Greek courts have upheld infringement claims and injunctions. The key lies in documenting these conditions carefully before litigation.
Q: How long does an IP infringement claim typically take to resolve before Greek courts?
A: Interim injunction proceedings in Greece can produce a first-instance order within several weeks, though contested hearings may extend this to a few months. Full merits proceedings before the civil courts typically take one to three years at first instance, with appeals adding further time. Rights holders with urgent commercial needs often prioritise interim relief while parallel proceedings are filed for damages and permanent injunctions.
Q: Is it a misconception that exhaustion in Greece automatically extends to goods imported from non-EU countries?
A: Yes, this is a common misconception. Greece applies EU regional exhaustion, not international exhaustion. Goods placed on the market outside the EU and EEA do not trigger exhaustion of IP rights in Greece, even if the rights holder authorised the sale abroad. Importing such goods into Greece without the rights holder's specific consent for the EU market constitutes infringement under Greek and EU intellectual property legislation. Engaging a lawyer in Greece with cross-border IP experience is essential to mapping the precise origin of goods and structuring the most effective response.
About Ferraz & Whitmore
Ferraz & Whitmore is an international law firm based in Lisbon, advising business clients across 46 jurisdictions. Our intellectual property practice covers trademark application strategy, Nice Classification analysis, opposition proceedings before national and EU offices, infringement claim litigation, and parallel import management across European and international markets. We work with technology companies, pharmaceutical distributors, luxury goods brands, and institutional investors who need coordinated IP enforcement across civil law and common law systems. As an international law firm in Greece and across the EU, we support clients in designing enforcement strategies that align IP rights protection with broader commercial objectives. The firm's IP team includes practitioners with experience before OBI, the EUIPO, and civil courts in multiple EU jurisdictions. Our attorneys have advised on trademark registration and parallel import disputes spanning both EU harmonised legislation and national Greek intellectual property law. To discuss your IP strategy 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.