Greece: Parallel imports ruling raises questions

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Greece: Parallel imports ruling raises questions

In a recent case relating to a product (a medical device) that treats coughs, some interesting issues were raised regarding parallel imports, repackaging and unfair competition.

The Greek distributor of this product brought a preliminary injunction (PI) action against a parallel importer of the same product that was imported from another EU member state. The defendant had attached its name and a summary of useful information to a label on the package of the product and, additionally, it had inserted a leaflet within the package containing the product's critical information in the Greek language. The action was based on unfair competition rules rather than on trade mark law.

The PI judge ruled that there is no unfair competition on the part of the defendant as the information, either attached or inserted, was necessary for the product's launch on to the Greek market. However, the PI judge did not further consider whether the defendant's above-mentioned actions constitute "repackaging" as defined by the EU case law regarding exhaustion of trade mark rights.

According to the Greek unfair competition rules, any purposeful competitive act that runs contrary to public morals is prohibited. In that sense, if the defendant's above-mentioned acts were to be found to be an impermissible "repackaging", this might well mean that they constitute an act running contrary to public morals, even if trade mark protection is not directly invoked.

Notably, the PI judge dismissed the trade mark owner's intervention filed in favour of the claimant by ruling that the trade mark owner should have chosen a procedural remedy under which an independent protection against the defendant would have been sought.

It seems that this judgment is not free from difficulties, which are anyway frequently present in parallel imports cases. It is certain though that a coughing out ruling does not help legal clarity.

Manolis Metaxakis

Patrinos & Kilimiris

7, Hatziyianni Mexi Str.

GR-11528 Athens

Greece

Tel: +30210 7222906, 7222050

Fax: +30210 7222889

info@patrinoskilimiris.com

www.patrinoskilimiris.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The tie-up could result in the firm’s German and France-based teams, which both have strong UPC expertise, becoming independent
News of a slowdown in the UK’s clean energy IP landscape and an EPO report on unitary patent uptake were also among the top talking points
Price hikes at ‘big law’ firms are pushing some clients toward boutiques that offer predictable fees, specialised expertise, and a model built around prioritising IP
The Australian side, in particular, can benefit by capitalising on its independent status to bring in more work from Western countries while still working with its former Chinese partner
Koen Bijvank of Brinkhof and Johannes Heselberger of Bardehle Pagenberg discuss the Amgen v Sanofi case and why it will be cited frequently
View the official winners of the 2025 Social Impact EMEA Awards
King & Wood Mallesons will break into two entities, 14 years after a merger between a Chinese and an Australian firm created the combined outfit
Teams from Shakespeare Martineau and DWF will take centre stage in a dispute concerning the registrability of dairy terminology in plant-based products
Senem Kayahan, attorney and founder at PatentSe, discusses how she divides prosecution tasks, and reveals the importance of empathetic client advice
The association’s Australian group has filed a formal complaint against the choice of venue, citing Dubai as an unsafe environment for the LGBTQIA+ community
Gift this article