July 2025

Decision of the Administrative Trademark Committee (ATC) of the Hellenic Industrial Property Organisation (OBI) – Acceptance of Proof of Use Opposition

By its decision no. 124/2025, the Second Division of the Administrative Trademark Committee (ATC) of the Hellenic Industrial Property Organisation (OBI) rejected an opposition filed against the application for registration of our client’s national trademark. The opposing company claimed there was a likelihood of confusion between our client’s composite sign and its own earlier national composite trademark, registered over a decade ago.

As part of our strategic approach, we raised a proof of use objection under Article 28 of Law 4679/2020, accompanied by supporting case law and literature. This shifted the burden to the opposing party to demonstrate genuine use of its earlier trademark for the relevant goods within the previous five years. Failing that, the opponent had to establish “proper reasons” justifying non-use.

According to the Committee: “Upon reviewing the file and particularly the evidence submitted by the opponent, it is concluded that the opponent failed to prove either genuine use of its trademark or the existence of proper reasons justifying non-use. On the contrary, the submitted documents [invoices] bear the company name but show no use of the trademark itself.” Additionally, the Committee accepted our argument that the opponent’s social media materials did not demonstrate use “of the trademark” in the sense established by Greek case law and the CJEU. It was held that the mark depicted therein differed from the earlier registered sign, and thus did not constitute valid use.

As a result, the Committee unanimously held that the opposition should be dismissed in its entirety under Article 28(3) of Law 4679/2020, without examining the substantive issue of likelihood of confusion.

This decision is of practical interest as it underscores a crucial aspect of trademark law: mere registration does not suffice. Beyond the necessity of a proper legal clearance prior to filing (failure to do so may cause lasting issues, often discovered too late - see here), a business must use its trademark in a manner that safeguards it from proof of use objections. Failure to do so may not only result in unsuccessful oppositions, but could even lead to invalidation actions for non-use. Of course, what constitutes “genuine use” in practice is a matter shaped by jurisprudence, which makes legal advice essential. In this case, although the opponent believed it could assert its trademark rights offensively, this assumption proved unfounded, and the opposition was dismissed without even examining the similarity of the marks.

The decision also highlights the strategic legal tools available to a defendant which—if properly deployed—can secure a favorable outcome without engaging in a substantive comparison of the signs in question.