Greece: Immediate effect/enforceability of relevant orders for parallel imports

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

Greece: Immediate effect/enforceability of relevant orders for parallel imports

In a recent case relating to automotive spare parts parallel imports, an interesting issue was raised regarding immediate effect/enforceability of the Court`s order on commercial information disclosure.

More specifically, the Athens Special IP Full-Bench Court, ruling on a trade mark proprietors' main infringement action against a Greek grey – importer company, ordered the latter, among others, to provide the claimants with legally certified copies of all commercial invoices by way of which, the products of trade mark proprietors, being the subject of said main action, were purchased by the defendant and sold to third parties and also to provide the claimants with a written statement containing the full particulars of any natural or legal entity, from whom products of the same nature were purchased, both covering a specific time period, and both at the defendant's own expense.

The above may be considered as standard practice/ruling, in the case that main infringement actions relating to parallel imports have been accepted, according to the IPED, the domestic trade mark law provisions and relevant case-law.

What is new, is that the aforementioned Court`s order has not been declared provisionally enforceable, on the basis of the following interesting ruling: Court orders that are issued pursuant to Articles 452 and 904 par.2 of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure, like the one discussed above, are considered to be immediately enforceable/effective against the defendant; therefore, neither the Court shall declare their provisional enforceability, nor should the claimants wait until they become final and irrevocable in order to be enforced.

Notably, it seems that said judgment sets new standards on Court`s orders regarding commercial information disclosure, which are anyway frequently present in parallel imports cases, for the sake of simplification and acceleration of proceedings as well as trade mark proprietors` relief.

Georgios Panagopoulos


Patrinos & Kilimiris7, Hatziyianni Mexi Str.GR-11528 AthensGreeceTel: +30210 7222906, 7222050Fax: +30210 7222889info@patrinoskilimiris.comwww.patrinoskilimiris.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

As global commerce continues to expand through e-commerce platforms and digital marketplaces, protecting brands has become a growing challenge for organisations worldwide. Counterfeiting, intellectual property infringement, and online brand abuse are increasing across industries, making brand protection strategies a critical priority for businesses.
Henrik Holzapfel and Chuck Larsen of McDermott Will & Schulte explain why a Court of Appeal ruling could promote access to justice and present a growth opportunity for litigation finance
A co-partner in charge says the UK prosecution teams are a ‘vital’ part of the firm’s offering, while praising a key injunction win
A team from White & Case has checked in on behalf of Premier Inn Hotels in a UK trademark and passing off case against a cookie brand
Litigation team says pre-trial work and a Section 101 defence helped significantly limit damages payable by ride-sharing firm Lyft in patent case
News of Avanci hiring a senior vice president and the EPO teaming up with a French AI startup were also among the top talking points
Explosm, the independent Texas studio behind the hit webcomic Cyanide & Happiness, partnered with Temu’s IP protection team to combat counterfeiters infringing on its brand
The latest in a dispute over juicing machines, and a shakeup in judicial compositions were also among the top developments
Patent partner Robert Hollingshead explains why the firm remains committed to Japan despite several US firms exiting the Japanese and greater Asia market
Emma Green, partner at Bird & Bird, shares why the Iceland v Iceland dispute could prompt businesses and lawyers to think differently about brand enforcement
Gift this article