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

IP STARS, Managing IP’s accreditation title, reveals its latest rankings for patent work, including which firms are moving up
Leaders at US law firms explain what attorneys can learn from AI cases involving Meta and Anthropic, and why the outcomes could guide litigation strategies
Attorneys reveal the trademark and copyright trends they’ve noticed within the first half of 2025
Senior leaders at TE Connectivity and Clarivate explain how they see the future of innovation
A new action filed by Nokia against Asus and a landmark ruling on counterfeits by South Africa’s Supreme Court were also among the top talking points
Counsel explain how they’re navigating patent prosecution matters and highlight key takeaways from Federal Circuit cases
A partner who joined Fenwick alongside two others explains what drew her to the firm and her hopes for growth in Boston
The England and Wales High Court has granted Kirkland & Ellis client Samsung interim declaratory relief in its ongoing FRAND dispute with ZTE
A UDRP decision that found in favour of a small business in a domain name dispute could encourage more businesses to take a stand in ‘David v Goliath’ cases
In Iconix v Dream Pairs, the Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal was wrong to interfere with an earlier ruling, prompting questions about the appeal court’s remit
Gift this article