Zara trademark saga: the Greek head comes to the surface

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Zara trademark saga: the Greek head comes to the surface

Sponsored by

patrinos-logo.png
church-6982224.jpg

Manolis Metaxakis of Patrinos & Kilimiris reports on a notable judgment in the Zara trademark dispute, highlighting a radical provision in the relevant Greek legislation and the ruling’s alignment with EU case law

The dispute between Inditex, the Spanish fashion group, and Ffauf Italia SpA, the Italian food producer, has, not surprisingly, a Greek head as well. It is well known, after all, that the dispute resembles the Lernaean Hydra. In Greece, Inditex sought to have some of Ffauf’s national trademark registrations, relating to ‘Pasta Zara’, revoked on the basis of non-use.

The specialised division on intellectual property matters of the Athens Court of Appeal delivered a judgment in this respect on July 11 2024. Setting aside the legacy of the dispute, this judgment is notable because it is the fruit of the most radical provision of the Greek Law on Trademarks, No. 4679/2020.

According to that provision, all decisions on invalidity and revocation actions (but not on oppositions) filed and decided at the administrative level – that is to say, before/by the Hellenic Industrial Property Organisation – shall be reviewed by the civil courts; i.e., by the specialised divisions on intellectual property matters of the first-instance court and the Athens Court of Appeal.

As regards the merits of the case, the court emphasised that when assessing whether use of the trademark is genuine, regard must be had to all the facts and circumstances to assess whether the commercial exploitation of the mark in the course of trade is real. The court also clarified that it is sufficient that a trademark has been used during a part of the five-year period applicable for the trademark not to be subject to the sanctions of revocation.

Finally, it was held that the use of a trademark by a company that is economically linked to the proprietor of the mark is presumed to be use of that mark with the consent of the proprietor and is therefore to be deemed to constitute use by the proprietor.

This is in full line with EU case law, which served as a basis for the court to provide a well-reasoned judgment, bearing in mind that the court had to consider several types of evidence to assess whether the use concerned amounts to genuine use of the trademark registrations challenged.

It seems that the Greek legislator had a point with the aforementioned reform, which is good news for all cases, either with a domestic or international flair.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Attorneys explain why there are early signs that the US Supreme Court could rule in favour of ISP Cox in a copyright dispute
A swathe of UPC-related hires suggests firms are taking the forum seriously, as questions over the transitional stage begin
A win for Nintendo in China and King & Spalding hiring a prominent patent litigator were also among the top talking points
Rebecca Newman at Addleshaw Goddard, who live-reported on the seminal dispute, unpicks the trials and tribulations of the case and considers its impact
Attorneys predict how Lululemon’s trade dress and design patent suit against Costco could play out
Lawyers at Linklaters analyse some of the key UPC trends so far, and look ahead to life beyond the transition period
David Rodrigues, who previously worked at an IP boutique, said he may become more involved in transactional work at his new firm
Indian smartphone maker Lava must pay $2.3 million as a security deposit for past sales, as its dispute with Dolby over audio coding SEPs plays out
Powell Gilbert’s opening in Düsseldorf, complete with a new partner hire, continues this summer’s trend of UPC-related lateral movement
IP leaders at Brandsmiths and Bird & Bird, who were on opposing sides at the UK Supreme Court in Iconix v Dream Pairs, unpick the landmark case and its ramifications
Gift this article