InternationalUSRemember you can easily switch between MIP US and MIP International at any time

Greece: Should “uniqueness” be examined in well-known marks cases?




Although not as frequently as in the past, the Greek courts still require in several instances "uniqueness" of the mark in order to rule in infringement cases that the trade mark at issue is well known. In a recent case, the specialised Division of the Appeals Court in Athens handed down a judgment where it is straightforward that "uniqueness" of the mark may not serve as a criterion for a trade mark to gain a well-known status.

More specifically, the Court affirmed that in order to satisfy the requirement of reputation the trade mark must be known to a significant part of the public concerned by the goods or services covered by that trade mark, whereas in examining that condition, it is necessary to take into consideration all the relevant facts of the case, in particular the market share held by the mark, the intensity, geographical extent and duration of its use, and the size of the investment made by the undertaking in promoting it. As far as "uniqueness" is concerned, the Court held that its prima facie meaning is that the trade mark has not been used by anyone for any goods or services other than by the proprietor of the mark for the goods and services it covers.

Notably, the Court went on to add that "uniqueness" is not among these factors on the basis that the distinctive character of the earlier mark, and consequently its remarkably high distinctive character, may well be acquired through use and may not be necessarily inherent. However, it was nevertheless affirmed that "uniqueness" of the trade mark is among the factors to be examined by the Court for the infringement of a well-known trade mark to be upheld.

It will be interesting to see whether this position will survive if the case is brought before the Greek Supreme Court (Areios Pagos).


Manolis Metaxakis

Patrinos & Kilimiris
7, Hatziyianni Mexi Str.
GR-11528 Athens
Greece
Tel: +30210 7222906, 7222050
Fax: +30210 7222889


Comments






profile

Managing IP

ManagingIP

ManagingIP profile

RT @UPCtracker: This is one of nine (9) cases allocated to Justice Prof Huber (among them consolidated complaint re: adequate legal protect…

Feb 21 2018 05:15 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
ManagingIP profile

The complaint against the legislation enabling Germany to ratify the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court is includ… https://t.co/91NMMhmuYn

Feb 21 2018 05:15 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
ManagingIP profile

Pfizer argued that plausibility should be an "evidential tool" not a "threshold test", while Actavis warned against… https://t.co/EqhdqxmE6J

Feb 21 2018 05:09 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
More from the Managing IP blog


null null null

null null null

February 2018

FRAND aid: Is the European Commission’s SEP guidance useful?

Both patent owners and implementers have welcomed the European Commission’s communication on standard essential patents. Does that mean it has successfully balanced competing interests or merely dodged the difficult questions? James Nurton investigates



Most read articles

Supplements