Belvedere brand prevails in Greek court of appeal’s trademark dispute ruling

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

Belvedere brand prevails in Greek court of appeal’s trademark dispute ruling

Sponsored by

patrinos-logo.png
Belvedere vodka bottle

Maria Kilimiris of Patrinos & Kilimiris says the decision on the ‘Belvedere Mykonos Club’ mark highlights the importance of complementary goods and services as a factor in opposition cases

A Greek Administrative Court of Appeal has issued a decision (No. 875/2025) in a trademark opposition dispute concerning the international vodka brand Belvedere. The case involved a comparison between the earlier marks ‘Belvedere’ (for wines and spirits) and ‘Belvedere Intense’ (for vodka), owned by the Polish company Polmos Zyrardow, and the later national mark ‘Belvedere Mykonos Club’, filed for entertainment services under Class 41 of the Nice Classification.

The opposition was initially dismissed by the Greek Trademarks Office and subsequently by an Administrative Court of First Instance, which considered that there was no likelihood of confusion. The first-instance court found that the goods and services at issue – alcoholic beverages on the one hand and nightclub/entertainment services on the other – were unrelated, while it also rejected arguments of bad faith and enhanced protection of a well-known mark.

This reasoning was consistent with an earlier ruling, where the court had found that ‘Belvedere’ possessed low distinctiveness, being a term commonly used to denote a “beautiful view” or tourist location. In that decision, the court stressed that although the compared signs shared the element “Belvedere”, they distinguished unrelated categories – premium beverages versus nightlife services in Mykonos – and that the average consumer could easily differentiate between the opponent’s well-known alcoholic products and the applicant’s business activities.

On appeal, however, the second-instance court took a different approach. Reassessing the facts, it placed emphasis on the dominant role of the word “Belvedere” in both signs. The court held that the additional elements “Mykonos” and “Club” in the contested trademark were descriptive of the location and nature of services covered by the trademark and therefore insufficient to avoid confusion.

Most importantly, the court considered that alcoholic beverages and nightclub services are complementary. Consumers encountering the sign “Belvedere Mykonos Club” in the context of nightlife could reasonably believe that the entertainment services were provided or sponsored by the proprietor of the well-known Belvedere vodka brand, or by an affiliated undertaking. The judgment explicitly aligned its reasoning with established EU case law on the global assessment of likelihood of confusion, including the concept of association.

As a result, the Administrative Court of Appeal overturned the earlier rulings, annulled the acceptance of the ‘Belvedere Mykonos Club’ mark, and upheld the opposition in its entirety.

Wider significance of the Belvedere ruling

This judgment is a reminder that under Greek and EU trademark law, the relationship between goods and services must be assessed not only in terms of strict similarity but also with regard to their complementary nature in practice. The decision reinforces the protection enjoyed by international brands in Greece and underlines the readiness of national courts to apply EU case law principles consistently in opposition proceedings.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Howard Hogan, IP partner at Gibson Dunn, says AI deepfakes are driving lawyers to rethink how IP protects creativity and innovation
Vivien Chan joins us for our ‘Women in IP’ series to discuss gender bias in the legal profession and why the business model followed by law firms leaves little room for women leaders
Partner Jeremy Hertzog explains how his team worked through a huge amount of disclosure from Adidas and what victory means for the firm
Evarist Kameja and Hadija Juma at Bowmans explain why a new law in Tanzania marks a significant shift in IP enforcement
In the wake of controversy surrounding Banksy’s recent London mural, AJ Park’s Thomas Huthwaite and Eloise Calder delve into the challenges street artists face in protecting their works and rights
Alex Levkin, founder of IPNote, discusses reshaping the filing industry through legal tech, and why practitioners’ advice should stretch beyond immediate legal needs
Cohausz & Florack, together with Krieger Mes & Graf von der Groeben, has taken action against Amazon on behalf of three VIA LA licensors
In the fourth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss unconscious bias in the IP workplace and how to address it
Greg Munt, who has moved from Griffith Hack to James & Wells after four decades, hails his new firm’s approach to client service
Practitioners warn that closing the Denver regional office could trigger a domino effect, threatening local innovation and access to IP resources
Gift this article