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

A ruling on confidentiality by the the England and Wales Court of Appeal and an intervention from the US government in the InterDigital v Disney litigation were also among top talking points
Moore & Van Allen hires former Teva counsel Larry Rickles to help expand the firm’s life sciences capabilities
Canadian law firms should avoid ‘tunnel vision’ as exclusive survey reveals client dissatisfaction with risk management advice and value-added services
In major recent developments, the CoA ruled on director liability for patent infringement, and Nokia targeted Paramount at the UPC and in Germany
Niri Shan, the newly appointed head of IP for UK, Ireland and the Middle East, explains why the firm’s international setup has brought UPC success, and addresses German partner departures
Vlad Stanese joins our ‘Five minutes with’ series to discuss potentially precedent-setting trademark and copyright cases and his love for aviation
Heath Hoglund, president of Via LA, discusses how it sets royalty rates and its plans to build on growth in China
Stobbs stands accused of interfering with the administration of justice after Brandsmiths’ client was subjected to an interim injunction for unjustified threats
The firm, known for its prosecution expertise, discusses its plans following the appointment of a UK-based patent litigation head and two new partners
Ed White at Clarivate provides an exclusive insight into the innovation power clusters reshaping Europe and the Middle East’s IP landscape, and why quality is the new currency of invention
Gift this article