By Decision No. 100/2025 of the Second Division of the Administrative Trademark Committee (ATC) of the Hellenic Industrial Property Organization (OBI), a national composite trademark (comprising both verbal and figurative elements) registered for distinguishing natural table water was declared invalid. According to the decision: "The Committee unanimously finds that the applicant’s claims regarding the existence of grounds for invalidity of the contested mark are both legally and factually well-founded, as the mark lacks distinctiveness, is descriptive, and constitutes an indication of the geographical origin of the products it designates, pursuant to the absolute grounds for refusal set out in Article 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Greek Trademark Law."
It is worth noting that the contested trademark had been accepted and registered as early as 2012. The company represented by our associate—another undertaking operating in the same sector—filed in 2022 an application for a national trademark containing the same toponym. An opposition was filed against this new application by the aforementioned company, invoking its prior 2012 trademark.
Strategically, alongside the opposition proceedings to which we responded with a memorandum, we also filed a petition for invalidity against the opponent's earlier mark.
The rationale was that, by successfully annulling the 2012 trademark, the legal basis for the opposition would cease to exist, rendering the opposition devoid of object. Indeed, as confirmed by the recently published Decision No. 100/2025, the ATC of OBI accepted our arguments unanimously and declared the earlier mark invalid.
This decision is of practical interest, as it relates to a common scenario in the bottled water market: where a company attempts to register a trademark consisting of a geographical term (typically the source or spring name) accompanied by additional elements (e.g., mountain peaks—often snow-capped—or generic illustrations), which, however, are insufficient to confer the legally required distinctiveness to the sign. The lack of such distinctiveness has the following consequences:
a. The mark may not be accepted for registration;
b. Even if registered, it may be vulnerable to future invalidity actions and risk being removed from the Trademark Register; and
c. The business may not be able to effectively invoke trademark rights in the future (e.g., against a competitor using a similar sign), as the required legal protection will not be granted.
Decision No. 100/2025 of the ATC of OBI serves as a reminder that not all trademark registrations are equally robust.
There are many instances where a company may have a registered trademark which, upon challenge—potentially years later by a competitor—may be invalidated. In the case at hand, the trademark was initially accepted in 2012, but only due to inadequate examination. Through the invalidity petition, we revisited the improper acceptance of the mark, supporting our position with appropriate legal and factual substantiation. As a result, not only was the opposing party unable to offensively rely on its prior mark, but it also suffered its revocation.
Read all the court rulings