What Greece's New IP Law (law 5271/2026) Means for IP Enforcement and Litigation in Greece, Practical Guidance for Rights Holders

IP enforcement in Greece entered a new phase on 30 January 2026 when Law 5271/2026 was published in the Government Gazette (FEK A’ 11/30.01.2026), introducing strengthened criminal and administrative sanctions, particularly for the forgery and unauthorised distribution of artworks and collectibles, while also refreshing the broader enforcement toolkit available to all intellectual-property rights holders. The law arrives alongside growing EU-level coordination on IP enforcement, including initiatives spearheaded by the EUIPO, and it requires brand owners, patent holders and their advisers to reassess litigation strategy, evidence-gathering workflows and remedy selection without delay. This guide provides the practical, step-by-step playbook that in-house counsel and IP managers need to navigate IP enforcement in Greece under the 2026 reforms.

Immediate action items for rights holders:

• Preserve evidence now. Audit existing evidence files, capture online infringement data and secure notarised screenshots or bailiff reports before any pre-suit notice is sent.
• Evaluate injunction and customs routes. Preliminary injunctions and AADE customs-detention applications should be considered early, particularly where infringing goods are crossing Greek borders.
• Reassess damages evidence. The 2026 reforms sharpen focus on quantum proof; rights holders should begin assembling licensing-fee comparables, lost-profit calculations and unjust-enrichment records immediately.

Overview of Law 5271/2026: Key Changes and Why They Matter for IP Enforcement in Greece

Law 5271/2026 was drafted with a primary focus on combating art forgery and the illicit trade in collectibles, but its impact extends to the wider intellectual-property enforcement landscape. The Hellenic Copyright Organization (OPI) published an official summary on 3 February 2026 outlining the scope and enforcement priorities of the new provisions. Independent practitioner analysis published by Bernitsas Law on 5 March 2026 confirmed the significance of the amendments for rights holders across trademark, copyright and related-rights disputes.

What the law changes in practice

• Enhanced criminal sanctions. New and amended criminal offences target the forgery, falsification and unauthorised distribution of artworks and collectibles, with heavier penalties that are intended to deter organised counterfeiting operations.
• Strengthened administrative measures. Administrative fines and destruction orders have been updated, giving authorities a faster, non-judicial route to remove infringing goods from the market.
• Updated definitions. The law introduces clearer definitions around the types of works and items that fall within its protective scope, reducing interpretive ambiguity that previously complicated enforcement actions.
• Enhanced border measures. The provisions complement existing AADE customs-enforcement powers, reinforcing the ability of rights holders to intercept infringing goods at the Greek border.

Timeline of key legislative dates

Industry observers expect the combined effect of these reforms to accelerate enforcement activity in Greece throughout 2026, particularly in the art market and luxury-goods sector where forgery has historically been difficult to prosecute.

Who Can Bring Enforcement Proceedings and Where: The IP Litigation Procedure in Greece

Understanding court structure is fundamental to any IP litigation procedure in Greece. Rights holders, whether they hold trademarks, patents, copyrights, industrial designs or related rights, can pursue enforcement through civil, criminal or administrative channels, depending on the nature of the infringement and the remedy sought.

Civil courts

Civil IP disputes in Greece are heard by the single-member or multi-member courts of first instance, depending on the value and complexity of the claim. Appeals from first-instance decisions are heard by the competent Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court (Areios Pagos) reviews points of law only. Standing is granted to the rights holder, an exclusive licensee (where the licence confers standing), or, in the case of collective rights, a collecting society or professional association.

Criminal route

Criminal complaints for IP infringement are filed with the public prosecutor. Under Law 5271/2026, certain offences related to art forgery and distribution now carry enhanced penalties, making the criminal route a more viable strategic option for rights holders in those categories. Criminal proceedings can run in parallel with civil claims.

Administrative enforcement

Administrative measures, including fines and destruction orders, can be pursued through relevant administrative authorities without recourse to the courts, offering a faster resolution in clear-cut cases of counterfeiting or piracy.

Specialist judges and fast-track options

Greece does not currently operate a dedicated IP court. However, trademark litigation in Greece and patent litigation in Greece benefit from the experience of judges in the Athens and Thessaloniki multi-member courts of first instance, who handle the majority of IP caseloads. The interim-measures procedure (discussed in the next section) provides a fast-track route that can deliver relief within weeks rather than months.

Preliminary Injunctions in Greece: When, How Fast and What Evidence

Preliminary injunctions are among the most powerful IP remedies in Greece, and they are frequently the first step in any enforcement campaign. Both trademark and patent owners can apply for interim measures where the infringement is ongoing and the delay of a full trial would cause irreparable harm.

Legal test for preliminary injunctions

The applicant must demonstrate:

1. A prima facie right. Evidence of valid IP ownership (registration certificates, priority documents, evidence of use).
2. Urgency. A showing that delay would cause irreparable or difficult-to-repair harm, typically demonstrated by ongoing sales, imminent product launches or evidence of escalating infringement.
3. Balance of convenience. The court must be satisfied that the harm to the applicant from refusing the injunction outweighs the harm to the respondent from granting it.

Evidential checklist (sample evidence bundle)

Standard timeline and procedural steps

1. Prepare application and evidence bundle, typically 1–2 weeks, depending on complexity.
2. File with the competent single-member court of first instance, the application is assigned a hearing date, often within 2–4 weeks of filing.
3. Hearing, oral submissions and presentation of documentary evidence; the respondent has the right to appear and oppose.
4. Decision, courts often issue the decision on the day of the hearing or within a few days. The injunction, if granted, is immediately enforceable.
5. Enforcement, the applicant serves the decision and, if the respondent fails to comply, can seek enforcement through a bailiff, including seizure of infringing goods.

The entire process, from filing to enforceable order, can take as little as 3–6 weeks in straightforward cases, making preliminary injunctions in Greece one of the faster interim-relief mechanisms in the EU.

Costs and security/bond

Courts may require the applicant to post a security bond to compensate the respondent if the injunction is later found to have been unjustified. The amount is at the court’s discretion and typically reflects the likely commercial impact on the respondent. Court fees for interim-measures applications are modest relative to the value of the relief sought.

Drafting checklist, sample relief wording

An effective preliminary-injunction application should request, at minimum:

• An order prohibiting the respondent from manufacturing, importing, marketing or distributing the infringing goods or services.
• Seizure of infringing goods, moulds, tools and marketing materials.
• A daily penalty (chrēmatikē poinē) for each day of non-compliance.
• An order for provisional evidence preservation (e.g., accounting records, import documents).

Damages and Other Civil IP Remedies in Greece: Calculation, Proof and Recent Trends

Securing an injunction stops the bleeding; damages for IP infringement provide the compensation. Greek law offers rights holders three principal methods for calculating damages, and the choice of method has significant consequences for the evidence that must be assembled.

Types of damages (actual loss, unjust enrichment, lost profits)

• Actual loss / lost profits. The rights holder proves the revenue lost as a direct result of the infringement, typically by comparing sales volumes before, during and after the infringing period.
• Licence-fee analogy. The court assesses what a willing licensee would have paid for a licence to use the IP right in question. This method is particularly useful where lost profits are difficult to quantify.
• Unjust enrichment. The infringer’s profits attributable to the unauthorised use of the IP right are disgorged to the rights holder.

Proving quantum, common methods and evidence

Interest and costs

Successful claimants are entitled to statutory interest on the damages awarded from the date of service of the claim. The court also awards litigation costs, although the recoverable amount is typically capped at a level that may not cover full actual legal fees.

Post-2026 shifts in assessors’ approach

Early indications suggest that Greek courts will take a more rigorous approach to quantum evidence following the 2026 reforms. Rights holders who present well-documented damages files, including expert reports, comparable licensing data and clear causal links, are likely to achieve materially better outcomes than those who rely solely on lump-sum estimates.

Border Measures, Seizures, Criminal and Administrative Remedies Under Law 5271/2026

Customs detention (AADE), checklist and timeline

The Independent Authority for Public Revenue (AADE) manages customs enforcement of IP rights at the Greek border. Rights holders can file an application for action requesting that customs officers detain suspected infringing goods upon importation.

AADE customs-detention checklist:

1. File an Application for Action (AFA) with AADE, providing detailed product descriptions, images of genuine and infringing goods, and contact details for a local representative.
2. Include copies of IP registration certificates and any existing court orders.
3. Nominate a local contact person who can attend inspection at short notice.
4. Upon detention, AADE notifies the rights holder. The rights holder then has a limited window to confirm infringement and, if necessary, initiate court proceedings to secure a permanent seizure and destruction order.

Goods detained at the border may be destroyed under simplified procedures where the importer does not object within the prescribed timeframe, a fast and cost-effective remedy for anticounterfeiting efforts.

Criminal sanctions introduced by Law 5271/2026, when to pursue the criminal route

Law 5271/2026 (FEK A’ 11/30.01.2026) introduced enhanced criminal sanctions targeting the forgery and distribution of artworks and collectibles. Where the infringement involves deliberate counterfeiting, particularly at scale or through organised networks, filing a criminal complaint with the public prosecutor is now a significantly more effective deterrent than under the prior regime.

When to consider criminal proceedings:

• The infringement is deliberate and commercial in nature.
• There is evidence of organised counterfeiting networks.
• The rights holder seeks a deterrent effect beyond financial compensation.
• Parallel civil proceedings would benefit from criminal-investigation evidence.

Administrative fines and destruction orders

Administrative authorities may impose fines and order destruction of infringing goods without requiring a court judgment. These measures are particularly useful for clear-cut counterfeiting cases where speed of removal from the market is the priority.

Choosing the right enforcement channel, decision flow:

1. Is the infringement at the border? → File AADE customs-detention application.
2. Is speed of removal critical and the infringement clear-cut? → Pursue administrative fines and destruction.
3. Is the infringer acting deliberately at commercial scale? → File criminal complaint with public prosecutor.
4. Does the rights holder need damages and/or a permanent injunction? → Initiate civil proceedings (interim measures + main action).
5. Multiple channels can run in parallel, coordinate timing and evidence carefully to avoid inconsistency.

Cross-Border IP Enforcement: Foreign Judgments and Arbitral Awards in Greece

Rights holders who obtain IP judgments or arbitral awards abroad frequently need to enforce them in Greece, whether to seize assets, restrain ongoing infringement or collect damages. The process to enforce foreign judgments in Greece follows a structured recognition-and-enforcement procedure.

Step-by-step process

1. Determine the applicable regime. For EU judgments, the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Regulation 1215/2012) applies, providing for direct recognition and enforcement without exequatur. For non-EU judgments, the Greek Code of Civil Procedure governs recognition.
2. File an enforcement application with the competent Greek court, attaching the foreign judgment, a certified translation, and a certificate of enforceability from the court of origin.
3. Serve the respondent. The respondent has the right to contest recognition on limited grounds (e.g., public-policy violation, lack of service in the original proceedings, irreconcilable judgments).
4. Obtain the Greek enforcement order. Once recognition is granted, the judgment is enforceable in Greece as if it were a domestic decision.
5. Execute the order through a Greek court bailiff, including seizure of assets, bank-account freezing or enforcement of injunctive relief.

Arbitral awards

Greece is a signatory to the New York Convention. Foreign arbitral awards are recognised and enforced by the Athens Single-Member Court of First Instance upon application. The grounds for refusal mirror the New York Convention defences (invalidity of agreement, lack of due process, public policy).

Practical tips for cross-border enforcement

• Consider applying for a freezing order or asset-preservation measures in Greece before the respondent becomes aware of enforcement proceedings.
• Coordinate with local Greek counsel early to avoid service and translation delays.
• Where enforcement of both an injunction and a damages award is needed, file concurrent applications to save time.

Practical Litigation Strategy and Checklists: Pre-Suit and In-Court

Effective IP enforcement in Greece depends as much on pre-suit preparation as on courtroom advocacy. The following checklists consolidate the key steps rights holders and their advisers should follow.

Pre-suit checklist

• Confirm IP registration status and renewal dates (trademarks, patents, designs).
• Collect and notarise evidence of infringement (screenshots, trap purchases, bailiff reports).
• Commission expert comparison report (branding expert for trademarks; technical expert for patents).
• Assess damages, assemble licensing comparables, sales data and profit-margin analyses.
• Identify the respondent’s corporate structure and assets in Greece (for enforcement planning).
• Send cease-and-desist letter (where strategically appropriate, note that advance warning may cause the infringer to hide evidence).

Evidence-preservation checklist

• Secure web-based evidence through notarised screenshots or blockchain-timestamped captures.
• Request a court order for evidence preservation (asfalīstika métra) where there is a risk of evidence destruction.
• Engage a digital-forensics provider where electronic evidence (emails, server logs, marketplace listings) is critical.

Witness and expert planning

• Identify fact witnesses (employees, investigators, customs officers) and brief them early.
• Appoint court-recognised experts for valuation, technical comparison or accounting analysis.
• Prepare expert reports in a format that the court can evaluate efficiently, Greek courts prefer concise, tabulated findings.

Timing decisions

• File for a preliminary injunction first when urgency demands immediate cessation of infringing activity.
• Commence the main damages action concurrently or shortly after the injunction is granted, to maintain procedural momentum.
• Consider mediation or ADR where the parties have an ongoing commercial relationship or where a negotiated settlement (e.g., a licence) is commercially preferable to protracted litigation.

Quick Templates and Sample Language

Sample injunction relief items

The following language may be adapted for use in a Greek preliminary-injunction application (translated into Greek for filing):

1. “An order prohibiting the Respondent from manufacturing, importing, advertising, offering for sale or distributing products bearing [description of the infringing sign/technology].”
2. “An order for the seizure and impoundment of all infringing goods, packaging, labels, moulds, tools and promotional materials in the Respondent’s possession or control.”
3. “A daily penalty of EUR [amount] for each day of non-compliance with the above orders, commencing on the date of service.”
4. “An order for the provisional preservation of the Respondent’s accounting records, import documentation and sales data relating to the infringing goods.”

Sample evidence bundle headings

• Tab 1, IP registration certificates and priority documents
• Tab 2, Notarised screenshots and bailiff report
• Tab 3, Trap-purchase receipts and product photographs
• Tab 4, Expert comparison report
• Tab 5, Sales and licensing revenue data
• Tab 6, Cease-and-desist correspondence (if applicable)
• Tab 7, Corporate-structure and asset-search results for the respondent

Conclusion: What Rights Holders Must Do in the Next 30, 90 and 180 Days

Law 5271/2026 has materially expanded the enforcement toolkit available to rights holders in Greece. To capitalise on these reforms and ensure effective IP enforcement in Greece, rights holders should follow this phased action plan:

• Next 30 days. Audit your IP portfolio for Greece-relevant registrations, review existing enforcement files and update evidence bundles with notarised captures of any ongoing infringement.
• Next 90 days. Instruct Greek counsel to evaluate injunction, customs and criminal-complaint options under the new regime; file AADE applications for action where border enforcement is relevant.
• Next 180 days. Commence civil proceedings (interim measures and/or main action) where settlement is not achievable; coordinate cross-border enforcement where parallel proceedings in other EU jurisdictions are under way.

The 2026 reforms reward rights holders who act decisively and assemble robust evidence early. Engaging experienced IP litigation counsel in Greece is the single most important step to ensuring enforcement success under the new framework.

Sources

1. Government Gazette / FEK, Law 5271/2026 (Nomotelia republish)
2. OPI (Hellenic Copyright Organization), News on Law 5271/2026
3. Bernitsas Law, Recent Developments in Intellectual Property Legislation Regarding Law 5271/2026
4. EUIPO, International IP Enforcement Summit
5. AADE (Greek Customs), IPR Customs Enforcement
6. gov.gr, Intellectual Property Rights Guidance
7. Global Law Experts, Anticounterfeiting Lawyers Greece