Greece: Risks arising from late trademark renewal under the new law

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

Cookies Settings

Greece: Risks arising from late trademark renewal under the new law

Sponsored by

patrinos-logo.png
Planning, risk and strategy in business

The newly-born Greek law on trademarks implementing Directive (EU) 2015/2436 has an attention-worthy provision, relating to the renewal of trademarks within their grace period. More specifically, the new Greek law on trademarks provides that the payment of the renewal fee can be made within the last six months of the protection’s term. It can also be made within an additional term of six months following the expiry of the formal protection’s term, subject to the payment of the renewal fee increased by 50% and without negating third parties’ rights acquired in the meantime.

What does a “right” mean in this regard?

If one is to assume that said legal provision refers to a subsequent trademark registration obtained by a third party within the earlier trademark’s grace period and before the earlier trademark’s late renewal, it is then clear that we have to deal with an intervening right, in addition to the ones already provided for in the Directive (EU) 2015/2436.

Furthermore, if one is to assume that the legal provision also refers to what is known under Greek law as “a right conferring prospective entitlement", it has to then be accepted that if a third party files a trademark application within the earlier trademark’s grace period, before said trademark is renewed (late), said subsequent trademark application may not successfully be opposed at a later stage.

Such an interpretation seems to penalise late renewal of a trademark by allowing the registration of a confusingly similar or identical trademark filed before the original trademark was renewed in the grace period, without the possibility of opposing such new application.

The above-mentioned parameters raise serious issues regarding the compatibility of the specific provision of the Greek law, not only with the Directive (EU) 2015/2436 but also with the Paris Convention that has been an integral part of the Greek regime on trademarks since 1975.

It is therefore interesting to see how the Greek Trademark Office and the Greek courts will interpret the specific legal provision.

Georgios Panagopoulos

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Law firms don't particularly like saying no to clients. Perhaps they should get better at it
The office, which has a relatively new patent litigation team as well as a wider ‘soft’ IP offering, would remain independent if the rejection is rubberstamped
The IP boutique is betting that growing investment in quantum and semiconductors will fuel demand as technology shifts toward physical systems
Lawyers say the overhaul better reflects commercial reality, with changes spanning novelty searches, digital designs and access to a small claims track, but stopping short of criminalising unregistered design infringement
Carpmaels & Ransford hires its fourth partner of the year and wins access to UPC files, as fresh orders address costs, confidentiality and the use of divisional patents
Peter Ling of Lenz & Staehelin in Zurich discusses trends in patent litigation, the regulation of AI and the benefits of teaching IP
Brandsmiths and Powell Gilbert will contest claims over several UK trademarks in a High Court case examining the ownership and revival of a heritage brand
Hogan Lovells Cadwalader is taking a fresh strategic approach to pricing in its AI strategy. It could amplify calls for law firms to ditch the billable hour
Charles Harding plans to build a new team around life sciences oppositions and contentious work, drawing on his three decades developing a practice from scratch at D Young & Co
The firm reveals how its litigation strategies informed the arguments that took Masimo’s judgment past $818 million
Gift this article