Greece: Trademark used in trade prevails over the registered form
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

Greece: Trademark used in trade prevails over the registered form

Sponsored by

patrinos-logo.png
bibake-uppal-83ug2s0at-i-unsplash.jpg

Evangelia Sioumala of Patrinos & Kilimiris looks at a recent judgment from the Athens Administrative Court of First Instance that favours the verbal elements of a trademark

In a trademark cancellation action for non-use, an issue of high significance for the trademark owners may come into play: Is there a genuine use of a registered trademark that consists of both verbal and figurative elements, when the latter is omitted while used in trade?

81adab5f608f4102af9ead0addb81627

In a recent case brought before the Athens Administrative Court of First Instance, the contested trademark consisted of the stylised word ‘JAGUAR’ and an image of the wild cat commonly known as a jaguar (Figure 1). It was argued accordingly that the owner of the contested trademark had failed to prove genuine use of the trademark, since all evidence submitted were related solely to the stylised word ‘JAGUAR’, while the figurative feature was missing (Figure 2).

The court held that the said omission does not alter the distinctive character of the trademark at issue. The court further clarified that the omitted figurative element conceptually illustrates the existing stylised word of the trademark. Thus, the word prevails, and the figurative element is a mere accessory.

The ruling is in line with EU case law, where it is correct to say that the average consumer will more easily refer to the goods in question by quoting their name rather than by referring to the figurative element of the trademark. Moreover, it would be unjust to impose a requirement for strict conformity between the form used in trade and the form in which the trademark was registered. In that sense, the trademark owner is reasonably allowed to make variations of its trademark in the course of trade, without altering the mark’s distinctive character, which further enables the mark to be better adapted to the marketing and promotion requirements.

In view of the above, there seems to be a preference to the verbal elements of a trademark, at least in cases where the figurative ones conceptually denote the verbal ones. It is nevertheless doubtful, whether the contested trademark would still survive the non-use attack, if the figurative element omitted was to serve a concept other than the one of the verbal feature.

 

Evangelia Sioumala

Associate, Patrinos & Kilimiris

E: esioumala@patrinoskilimiris.com

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

With a team of more than 80 patent lawyers and attorneys across 21 European offices, the firm is acting in some of the most high-profile UPC cases
Lippes Mathias has hired three partners and a counsel from Offit Kurman
External counsel for automotive companies explain how trends such as AI and vehicle connectivity are affecting their practices and reveal what their clients are prioritising
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The winners of the awards will be revealed at a gala dinner in New York City on April 25
Counsel debate the potential outcome of SCOTUS’s latest copyright case after justices questioned whether they should dismiss it
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP lawyer about their life and career
The small Düsseldorf firm is making a big impact in the UPC. Founding partner Christof Augenstein explains why
The court criticised Oppo’s attempts to delay proceedings and imposed a penalty, adding that the Chinese company may need to pay more if the trial isn’t concluded this year
Miguel Hernandez explains how he secured victory for baby care company Naterra in his first oral argument before the Federal Circuit
Gift this article