The Greek TM Application below met the Office's refusal, though an appeal is of course possible.

The GR TM Office considered that the figurative mark, comprising a representation of a wind turbine, was descriptive for wind turbines (Cl. 7) and production of electricity via wind energy (Cl. 40). It also went on to rule that the mark is deceptive in connection with electric energy from solar power, photovoltaic panels and devices, and photovoltaic apparatus for the production of electric energy, and production of electricity via solar power (Cl. 4,9,40).

Interestingly, the provisional refusal only related to descriptiveness and lack of distinctiveness of the mark. The Office's employment of the misleading / deceptive nature of the mark for part of the goods / services came in response to the Applicant's observations. 

If there is a conclusion to be drawn, it is that even a fanciful figurative mark might not escape refusal over descritpiveness. Assuming that the GR TM Office is right in considering the mark descritpive for wind turbines, its revised assessment that it is misleading for photovoltaic panerls and production of lectric enwergy via solar power is correct, unlike its initial refusal which extended descriptiveness to these goods / services as well.

As noted, an appeal before the Trademarks Administrative Committee of the Greek TM Office is possible, so we may hear on this in the future.