Greece Trademark Filing and Examination Under Law 4679/2020: Articles 20-25 and 30

Businesses filing in Greece need to understand that the national trademark system under Law No. 4679/2020 is registration-based, procedurally structured, and closely aligned with EU trademark doctrine. For applicants, the practical importance is straightforward: the filing strategy, the wording of the goods and services, the handling of formalities, and the timing of responses can materially affect whether a mark proceeds to publication, faces opposition, or is refused. Greece does not require use before filing, but the system combines formal examination, substantive review on absolute grounds, publication, opposition, and later proof-of-use consequences. That means an applicant must plan not only for filing, but also for examination, publication risk, and downstream enforcement and vulnerability.

The Legal Framework: Law No. 4679/2020

• Article 2(1): Defines what may constitute a trademark, namely a sign capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of others.
• Article 3: Provides that the right to exclusive use of the trademark is obtained by registration, reflecting the Greek first-to-file registration model in practice.
• Article 20: Governs the initial handling of applications, including examination stages and search functions.
• Article 21: Addresses formal examination and deficiencies in the application, including the opportunity to cure defects.
• Article 22(1)(στ): Requires transliteration where marks contain non-Greek or non-Latin script, a recurring issue for foreign applicants and Madrid designations.
• Article 23: Requires classification of goods and services according to the Nice Classification.
• Article 24: Governs substantive examination and acceptance for publication where no absolute grounds bar exists; also gives the examiner power to invite limitation or argument within 30 days.
• Article 25: Establishes the opposition procedure and the three-month opposition period after publication.
• Article 28: Introduces proof-of-use requirements in opposition and related proceedings for earlier marks that have passed the relevant use period.
• Article 30: Establishes the Administrative Trademark Committee, which adjudicates oppositions and certain appeals.
• Article 32: Provides for further judicial review of committee decisions before the administrative courts.
• Article 33: Concerns the Register and registration mechanics.
• Article 50: Sets out revocation for non-use after five consecutive years.

Overview of the Greek Trademark Filing and Examination Process

Greece operates a national trademark system administered through the Directorate of Trademarks of the Ministry of Development, with the Hellenic Industrial Property Organisation, OBI, serving as the institutional reference point for trademark administration and public information. The system is not use-based at filing. An applicant does not need to submit evidence of use or a declaration of intention to use in order to obtain a filing date or pursue registration. Instead, the legal focus at filing is whether the sign qualifies as a trademark, whether the application complies with formal requirements, and whether the mark survives examination on absolute grounds.

In practical terms, the process has five core phases. First, the application is filed and checked for formal sufficiency. Second, the office addresses deficiencies such as unclear representation, improper classification, or missing transliteration. Third, a search and substantive examination take place, particularly on absolute grounds under Article 4. Fourth, if accepted, the mark is published. Fifth, there is a three-month opposition period during which third parties may challenge the application on absolute or relative grounds under Article 25.

The Greek model is important because it does not fully front-load relative grounds examination in the same way as some offices that issue ex officio citation refusals based on earlier marks. Instead, conflicts with earlier rights are primarily surfaced through opposition. This means that clearance before filing remains commercially essential, even if the examiner does not initially block the application on relative grounds.

The filing basis is therefore registration, not prior use. Rights are secured through registration, although in practice the filing date and register entries are central to priority and procedural standing. For applicants with broader European portfolios, the Greek system is familiar in doctrine because it implements EU Directive 2015/2436, but it still requires local procedural attention, especially with deadlines, transliteration, and proof-of-use mechanics in oppositions.

What the Directorate of Trademarks and OBI Consider in Filing, Examination, Timeline, and Opposition

The Directorate of Trademarks examines national applications for compliance with the statutory requirements of Law No. 4679/2020. OBI is commonly referenced in practice because it maintains public-facing trademark resources and administrative infrastructure. Examiners focus first on whether the application is complete and whether the sign is properly represented. They will look closely at the specification of goods and services, the legibility and nature of any figurative representation, and whether any non-Greek or non-Latin wording has been transliterated in accordance with Article 22(1)(στ).

For multilingual marks, the Greek office is particularly attentive to how the mark will be understood by the Greek public. Greek and Latin script are routinely handled, but where a mark contains other scripts, transliteration is required. This matters not only formally, but substantively: transliteration may affect how the office and later opponents assess phonetic similarity and meaning. For example, a word in Cyrillic, Arabic, or another script cannot simply be filed as a graphic element without the associated transliteration issue being considered.

At the formal examination stage under Articles 20 and 21, common deficiencies include:

• Classification defects: goods and services are imprecise, overbroad, or not aligned with Nice Classification practice.
• Representation defects: the mark image is unclear, incomplete, or technically unsuitable.
• Transliteration omissions: non-Greek or non-Latin wording is not transliterated as required by Article 22(1)(στ).
• Application data deficiencies: applicant details, priority data, or mark description elements are incomplete.

If deficiencies are found, the applicant is typically given 30 days to correct them. Failure to cure can result in rejection without the application reaching substantive examination. This is a significant procedural trap, particularly for foreign applicants who assume that formal defects are minor or can be cured later without consequence.

At the substantive stage under Article 24, the examiner focuses primarily on absolute grounds under Article 4. If no absolute-ground objection is found, the examiner issues an acceptance decision. The statute contemplates relatively prompt action, including issuance of an acceptance within 50 days where no absolute bar is present and publication within 50 days after acceptance. In practice, however, the total lifecycle to registration is commonly around 12 to 18 months if there is no opposition.

Once published, the application enters the opposition phase. Any party may oppose on absolute grounds, while only holders of earlier rights may oppose on relative grounds. This distinction matters strategically. Consumer associations, trade associations, or other third parties may challenge descriptiveness, public policy issues, deceptive character, or other Article 4 objections even where they do not own an earlier mark. By contrast, a likelihood-of-confusion challenge under Article 5 must come from a party with standing based on earlier rights.

Oppositions are heard by the Administrative Trademark Committee under Article 30. If an opposition is based on an earlier registered mark that is old enough to trigger proof-of-use requirements, Article 28 allows the applicant to demand evidence of genuine use for the relevant five-year period. That means an opposition is not merely a comparison of marks on paper; it can become an evidentiary proceeding in which the opponent’s portfolio strength depends on real commercial use.

Madrid Protocol designations of Greece are treated under the same statutory standards. The same absolute and relative grounds apply, and the same transliteration rule can generate a provisional refusal if the international registration includes non-Greek or non-Latin script without meeting Greek requirements.

Key Case Law

No leading procedural cases have been published in the source guide specifically on the mechanics of filing, publication timeline, and opposition administration under Law No. 4679/2020. Applicants should therefore rely primarily on the statutory text of Articles 20 to 25, Article 28, and Article 30, together with current office practice.

That said, the broader Greek and EU trademark environment shows that the Greek authorities apply EU-style principles on examination and opposition. Where the guide does not confirm a procedural precedent by citation, no leading cases have been published.

The Procedure for Responding to a Filing Deficiency, Examination Objection, or Opposition

1. Responding to a formal deficiency under Articles 20 and 21

If the office identifies a formal defect, the applicant is notified and normally given 30 days to correct it. The response should directly address the deficiency, such as by amending the goods and services, filing a clearer representation, or providing transliteration. If the defect is not cured in time, the application may be rejected without reaching substantive review.

2. Responding to an absolute-ground objection under Article 24(3)

If the examiner raises an absolute-ground objection, the applicant generally has 30 days to respond. The options include legal argument, narrowing the specification, clarifying the mark, or submitting evidence if acquired distinctiveness is relevant. A partial limitation can sometimes preserve a narrower but registrable application.

3. Appealing an examiner’s refusal

If the examiner issues a final refusal, the applicant may appeal to the Administrative Trademark Committee. The guide indicates a 60-day appeal period from notification of the refusal. The appeal should be structured, provision-specific, and supported by evidence where appropriate.

4. Defending against an opposition under Article 25

Once opposition is filed, the applicant should first determine whether it is based on absolute grounds, relative grounds, or both. If relative grounds are invoked and the earlier mark is sufficiently old, the applicant should consider requesting proof of use under Article 28. The applicant may also contest similarity of marks, similarity of goods, the opponent’s standing, or the legal sufficiency of the grounds.

5. Appealing an Administrative Trademark Committee decision

Committee decisions may be challenged before the administrative courts, generally within 60 days according to the guide. At this stage, applicants should coordinate closely with Greek counsel, as court review requires procedural precision beyond office-level advocacy.

Strategic Recommendations

• Recommendation: Conduct a pre-filing clearance search even though Greece does not fully front-load relative grounds in examination. Opposition remains the principal risk point for conflicts with earlier marks.
• Recommendation: Draft goods and services carefully under Article 23. Overbroad or vague specifications create avoidable formal objections and can also widen opposition exposure.
• Recommendation: Address transliteration issues at filing. Where the mark contains non-Greek or non-Latin script, provide accurate transliteration and be prepared for phonetic comparison in later proceedings.
• Recommendation: Monitor publication dates closely. The three-month opposition window under Article 25 is strict, and business planning should assume that registration is not secure until that period has expired or the opposition is resolved.
• Recommendation: Preserve use evidence from the outset, even though use is not required for filing. Article 28 proof-of-use disputes and Article 50 non-use risks make early evidence retention commercially important.
• Recommendation: For Madrid designations, review the Greek-specific formal requirements separately rather than assuming WIPO compliance alone will prevent provisional refusal.

Common Mistakes

• Mistake: Treating Greece as a purely automatic registration system once the application is filed. Absolute grounds examination and opposition can materially change the outcome.
• Mistake: Ignoring transliteration requirements for non-Greek or non-Latin wording. This can lead to formal objections or provisional refusals that delay or jeopardize protection.
• Mistake: Assuming the absence of an ex officio relative-ground refusal means the mark is safe. In Greece, the conflict often emerges at opposition stage.
• Mistake: Missing the 30-day response period for office objections. Uncured deficiencies can cause rejection without substantive merits ever being reached.
• Mistake: Filing broad specifications without a business rationale. Broad coverage increases both formal scrutiny and the chance of third-party opposition.

Key takeaway: In Greece, a trademark application succeeds not simply by filing first, but by navigating Articles 20 to 25 with precision. Applicants should treat formal compliance, absolute-ground review, publication, and the three-month opposition period as one integrated process rather than separate events.