Likelihood of Confusion in Greece Under Law 4679/2020: Article 5 Relative Grounds

In Greece, relative grounds are the main legal mechanism by which earlier rights holders stop later applications that threaten market confusion. Although the office’s initial examination focuses primarily on absolute grounds, Article 5 of Law No. 4679/2020 gives owners of earlier rights a powerful basis to oppose or invalidate a later mark. For applicants, this means that clearance before filing remains essential even where the office does not issue an ex officio citation refusal. For brand owners enforcing earlier rights, Article 5 provides a structured, EU-style likelihood-of-confusion test that considers the marks, the goods or services, and the perception of the average Greek consumer.

The Legal Framework: Law No. 4679/2020

• Article 5(1)(α): Refuses registration where the mark is identical to an earlier trademark and the goods or services are identical.
• Article 5(1)(β): Refuses registration where, because of identity or similarity of the mark and identity or similarity of the goods or services, there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public, including the likelihood of association with the earlier mark.
• Article 5(1)(γ): Protects earlier marks with reputation against later marks that would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark, even for dissimilar goods or services.
• Article 5(2): Defines earlier trademarks, including prior Greek, EU, and relevant international registrations or applications, and well-known marks.
• Article 5(3): Extends protection to other earlier rights, including certain unregistered signs and other protected interests.
• Article 23: Uses the Nice Classification for goods and services, though similarity analysis is not limited to class headings.
• Article 25: Allows oppositions based on relative grounds.
• Article 28: Permits proof-of-use requests against earlier marks in opposition and related proceedings.

The Likelihood of Confusion Test

The Greek test follows the established EU global-assessment model. The central question is whether the average consumer of the relevant goods or services in Greece would be likely to believe that the goods or services come from the same undertaking or economically linked undertakings. Article 5(1)(β) expressly states that confusion includes the likelihood of association.

No single factor is decisive. The analysis is interdependent. A high degree of similarity between the marks may compensate for a lower degree of similarity between the goods, and vice versa. The distinctiveness of the earlier mark also matters: the stronger the earlier mark, the broader its scope of protection. A weak earlier mark may still block highly similar later marks for identical goods, but it generally receives a narrower penumbra of protection than a strong arbitrary or well-known mark.

The relevant public is the average Greek consumer for the goods or services at issue, reasonably well informed and reasonably observant, though not engaging in side-by-side comparison. For specialized goods, the relevant public may be more attentive, which can reduce confusion risk. For everyday consumer products, normal imperfect recollection becomes especially important.

Greek practice therefore asks three broad questions. First, how similar are the signs visually, phonetically, and conceptually? Second, how similar are the goods or services in nature, purpose, channels of trade, and commercial complementarity? Third, what is the strength and recognition of the earlier mark? These are then weighed together in a global assessment.

What the Directorate of Trademarks and OBI Consider in Relative-Ground Analysis

Visual, phonetic, and conceptual comparison

Greek analysis considers all three dimensions of similarity:

• Visual similarity: spelling, length, letter sequence, structure, layout, and overall appearance.
• Phonetic similarity: pronunciation, syllable count, stress pattern, and how the mark will be spoken by Greek consumers.
• Conceptual similarity: whether the marks convey the same idea, meaning, or association.

In practice, none of these dimensions is mechanically dominant. For consumer goods bought by sight, visual similarity may carry particular weight. For marks used orally in ordering or advertising, phonetic similarity may be critical. Conceptual similarity can be especially influential where two different words evoke the same idea.

Greek and Latin script issues are important. Where a mark is transliterated or pronounced in Greek, phonetic similarity may increase even if the visual forms differ. Conversely, two visually similar Latin-script marks may be less problematic if they are pronounced differently by Greek consumers and carry different meanings.

Comparison by mark type

Word versus word: The office and tribunals compare the words as wholes while giving appropriate weight to beginnings, endings, and distinctive internal elements. Shared prefixes or roots can matter, but common descriptive fragments receive less weight.

Word versus logo: If the logo contains a verbal element, the verbal element often dominates because consumers refer to the mark by name. If the logo is purely figurative, conflict with a word mark is less likely unless the figurative element creates a strong conceptual overlap.

Logo versus logo: The comparison is primarily visual and conceptual. Distinctive recurring motifs, silhouettes, or emblematic shapes can generate confusion if they create similar overall impressions.

Combined marks: Greek practice gives particular attention to dominant elements. If the word portion dominates each composite mark, the comparison may center on the words. If the figurative component is unusually prominent and distinctive, it can materially affect the outcome. Descriptive or weak elements receive reduced weight.

The dominant-element doctrine in conflict analysis

For combined marks, dominant elements can decide the case. A highly distinctive word may outweigh differences in logos. Conversely, where the verbal portions are descriptive or non-distinctive, the office may focus more on the devices. This is why applicants should not assume that adding a small logo to a risky word mark will avoid opposition. If the word remains what consumers remember and verbalize, it will usually remain central to the analysis.

Goods and services similarity

Article 23 uses the Nice Classification, but Greek practice does not treat class identity as the legal endpoint. Goods and services may be similar even across different classes if they are complementary, sold through the same channels, aimed at the same public, or commonly produced by the same undertakings. Conversely, goods in the same class may in context be commercially distant.

Relevant factors include:

• Nature and purpose: are the goods used for the same function or need?
• Channels of trade: are they sold in the same outlets or to the same customers?
• Complementarity: are they commonly used together so that the public may assume a common source?
• Competitive relationship: are they substitutes or closely related offerings?

The stronger the relationship between the goods or services, the lower the threshold of mark similarity required for confusion. Identical goods paired with similar marks create obvious risk. Dissimilar goods may still present a problem where the earlier mark has reputation under Article 5(1)(γ).

Proof of use in oppositions

Article 28 can materially affect relative-ground outcomes. If the opposed earlier mark has been registered long enough, the applicant can require the opponent to prove genuine use in the relevant five-year period. A formally valid earlier registration that has not been genuinely used may therefore fail to support the opposition. This is a major procedural consideration in Greek opposition practice.

Key Case Law

No leading Greek cases have been published in the source guide with full citation details specifically setting out the Article 5 likelihood-of-confusion framework. The guide makes clear, however, that Greek practice mirrors the standard EU global assessment involving visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarity, goods comparison, and consumer perception. Where the guide does not confirm a citation, no leading cases have been published.

The Procedure for Responding to a Relative-Ground Refusal or Opposition

1. Analyze standing and the earlier right

Confirm whether the opponent owns a qualifying earlier mark or other right under Article 5(2) or Article 5(3), and whether the right covers the goods or services actually relied upon.

2. Consider a proof-of-use request under Article 28

If the earlier mark is old enough, require proof of genuine use. This can narrow or defeat the opposition if the opponent cannot prove use for all claimed goods or services.

3. Challenge mark similarity dimension by dimension

Separate visual, phonetic, and conceptual analysis. Applicants often lose by making only a generic “overall different impression” argument instead of confronting the specific similarities alleged.

4. Challenge goods similarity carefully

Do not concede similarity solely because the goods share a Nice class. Explain differences in purpose, consumers, channels, and market expectations.

5. Address the dominant element in combined marks

If the earlier mark relies on a common or descriptive verbal element, argue that consumers will focus on the distinctive device or on a different dominant feature. If your own mark is composite, explain why the differences in dominant elements prevent confusion.

6. Consider specification narrowing or coexistence options

Where the conflict is category-specific, narrowing goods and services may materially reduce risk. Commercial coexistence may also be explored, though any agreement should be assessed carefully for its effect in administrative proceedings.

7. Appeal adverse decisions

Administrative Trademark Committee decisions can be challenged before the administrative courts within the applicable statutory period indicated in the guide.

Strategic Recommendations

• Recommendation: Conduct Greek-focused clearance before filing, including phonetic and transliteration analysis, not just exact-match database checks.
• Recommendation: Pay close attention to dominant elements when designing composite marks. The most memorable feature will likely govern both office and opposition analysis.
• Recommendation: Use precise goods drafting to reduce overlap with third-party portfolios and to preserve room for distinction in opposition.
• Recommendation: In oppositions, request proof of use whenever Article 28 appears available. This is one of the most effective procedural tools for applicants.
• Recommendation: For reputed marks, evaluate Article 5(1)(γ) separately. Dissimilar goods do not end the inquiry where reputation, unfair advantage, or detriment is plausibly in issue.

Common Mistakes

• Mistake: Assuming that different logos eliminate conflict where the same or highly similar word remains dominant.
• Mistake: Treating Nice classes as a complete test for similarity of goods. Greek analysis is more commercially grounded.
• Mistake: Ignoring conceptual similarity, particularly where different words in Greek and a foreign language convey the same idea.
• Mistake: Failing to invoke proof of use against an older earlier mark. This can forfeit a major defense under Article 28.
• Mistake: Comparing marks side-by-side rather than through the lens of average consumer recollection and market conditions.

Key takeaway: Article 5 in Greece applies a global EU-style likelihood-of-confusion test that weighs mark similarity, goods similarity, and the strength of the earlier right. Applicants should focus on dominant elements, Greek consumer perception, and proof-of-use defenses to manage relative-ground risk effectively.