Login | Join Us | Contact Us | Search
 
 
 

 
 
  About Us   Press         Conferences   Members   Teams       Publications   Class 46     Position Papers   FAQs        Links     

Class 46 - for your European trade mark news
 

Now in its sixth year, Class 46  is dedicated to European trade mark law and practice.  This weblog is written by a team of enthusiasts who want to spread the word and share their thoughts with others.
 
  MONDAY, 30 AUGUST 2010
Greece - penalty clauses and trade mark agreements

 

The Athens Court of Appeal has given litigants in Greece a good precedent to enforce penalty clauses in trade mark related agreements, which have taken a wrong turn (or two). The story is not particularly original, though it takes place in the realm of hairdressing! As it so often happens, a group of people joined forces to open a hairdressing business, in the form of a general partnership company. The trade marks were registered in the name of one of the partners who licensed them to the company.  When they all decided they’ve had enough of each other, they signed an agreement whereby the license was revoked and the remaining partners were given a grace period to remove the trade marks from signs, printed matter etc. A penalty clause of 1.000 euro/day was set in case of infringement.

 

And as it, also, so often happens, the agreement was breached for a period of just over a hundred days. The injured party went on to enforce its rights and the case reached the Court of Appeal of Athens. The Court, after carefully setting out the legal requirements for enforcement of a penalty clause, upheld the particular penalty clause, rejecting the defendants’ arguments claiming that the penalty was disproportionate. So, for Greece, 1.000 euro per day for penalty clauses seems safe enough. The judgment received number 873/2010 and is available only in Greek. If any of the readers of this blog is interested, I’d be happy to forward it with a summary translation.

Posted by: Nikos Prentoulis @ 12.37 
Tags: Greece, penalty clause, trade mark agreements, court of appeal,

 

   0 comments:    Post a comment

 
 

Search Class 46
Search:

Who we all are...

Birgit Clark
Edith Van den Eede
Fidel Porcuna
Frédéric Glaize
Gino Van Roeyen
Jeremy Phillips
Kathrin Vowinckel
Laetitia Lagarde
Mark Schweizer
Markku Tuominen
Niamh Hall
Nikos Prentoulis
Pedro Malaquias
Robert Börner
Tomasz Rychlicki

Receive Class 46 by email
3356 readers now receive the Class 46 weblog by email circular. Why don't you?

To subscribe, just type your email address in the box below, then click the 'Subscribe' button.
email:

Receive Class 46 by RSS Feed
523 readers now receive the Class 46 weblog via an RSS reader.

Subscribe in a reader


The Class 46 archive


+ 2013
+ 2012
+ 2011
- 2010
     + December (50)
     + November (47)
     + October (40)
     + September (46)
     - August (30)
Facebook.me transferred to rightful owner
Preparing for the new gTLDs: a survey
Poland: membership in capital group is not enough
The weird case of the ZAHIA trade marks applications
Dismissal of dishonest franchisee: protecting a brand and interests in it
Greece - penalty clauses and trade mark agreements
"Absurd trade mark disputes"
iPod sees off eiPott threat
"Euro-defences" can't be swept aside by summary judgment, rules appellate court
More protection for branded booze sold in noisy bars
Poland: conflict between trade names
"Aura of luxury" assists Chanel against 'poor quality' marketing
Saucisse de Morteau names protected
September ETMR now out
Community Trade Mark Infringements in the Netherlands: how exclusive is the jurisdiction of The Hague District Court?
Coffee soup? Srsly?
UK to continue CTM owner notifications -- for now
New UK guidance on requests for cross-examination in Registry proceedings
Guccio Gucci successful in Italy as Florence Court stops use of Elisabetta Gucci mark.
Finland: NEW WAVE not descriptive for goods in class 25
Switzerland: SKY not confusingly similar to SKYPE
Poland: bound by the law
OHIM: Spanish trade marks via TMview
Beans, cheese, peppers in latest round of GIs
Non-minor amendments affect peach and nectarine GIs
VITA veto'd by VIETA
Autopaint: court reviews principles for assessing infringement damages
Arbitrating CTM disputes: a reader asks ...
August 2010 ETMR now out
OHIM introduces some practice changes
     + July (55)
     + June (40)
     + May (33)
     + April (42)
     + March (62)
     + February (44)
     + January (36)
+ 2009
+ 2008
+ 2007

 
 

Terms of Use: The material included on this site is provided for information purposes only, and we make no representations or warranties as to its accuracy. It does not represent legal advice. Before relying on this material, you should take care to verify its accuracy, taking professional advice as appropriate. [Please click here for the full Terms and Conditions of Use]

Copyright ©2008-2013 MARQUES Ltd and Individual Contributors