By and large intellectual and industrial property rights owners enjoy effective protection by the Greek courts, based on the well structured body of Greek law on IP, trademarks and patents. Both in Greek theory and case law the term "Industrial Property Law" is used to include Trademark and Patent Law, while the term "Intellectual Property Law" is used for the works of the intellect, thus for what in other countries is more known as "copyright". The applicable legislation is law 2239/1994 on Trademarks, law 2121/93 on Intellectual Property and law 1733/1987 on Transfer of Technology, patents and technical innovations. All the aforementioned statues provide both for civil and penal protection.

In case of an imminent or present infringement of IP rights, trademarks, or patents, the right owner may require the termination and non-repetition of the infringement in the future by filing an application for interlocutory proceedings. At extreme cases the application may be heard even without the presence of the defendant - alleged infringer and even on a Sunday. The Court may order the conditional seizure of the articles which are in the possession of the infringer, and which constitute the means, product or evidence of the infringement. Solely by means of a regular action may the tortious infringer be obliged to pay damages and compensation for detriment, or return the enrichment which occurred from the exploitation of the IP work, the trademark or the patent and also may the court order the destruction of the respective pirate or counterfeit products.

Upon the filing of such an application, the plaintiff may seek and obtain an interim order for the seizure of such articles, until the date the application is heard. Plaintiffs and their attorneys often consider the interim order more important that the actual procedure of the interlocutory proceedings, since this will enable them surprise the defendants and stop the latter from destroying any evidence which may prove to be crucial. Very often, if the judge who is asked to grant the interim order, sees that the case is not a very straightforward one or that there are very big interests at stake, he will order that the defendant be notified by telephone or telegram by the secretary of the court. A mini-trial will then take place before the judge so that he is able to decide prima facie whether to grant the interim order or not. During this procedure the parties present their arguments orally and witnesses may also be examined.

In the case of interlocutory measures, an agreement on arbitration is not considered effective. Therefore, such an agreement may not be brought up as an objection to the jurisdiction of the court if one of the parties decides to refer the dispute to the courts.

The court is free to rule on the measures it considers appropriate for the specific case and is not strictly bound to rule for the specific measures sought by the plaintiff. The respective regular claim must be brought up before the regular courts within thirty days from the date of the issue of the interlocutory measures, otherwise the latter will automatically be lifted.

In an application for interim measures the judge does not have to be convinced in order to rule the case, he merely has to be based on probable arguments presented by the parties, thus on a prima facie case. As a consequence, all means of evidence are acceptable.There is no appeal available according to the Code of Civil Procedure against a judgment of interlocutory measures. Only if there are new circumstances later on, may the parties seek the amendment and raising of the judgment and the issue of a new one.

Judgments are enforced with the aid of a bailiff , who is empowered with extra authority, since he has the power to enter residences and perform searches, calling the Police for help, if need be.

In case of non compliance with a negative interlocutory measures judgment , the court may (a) threaten the defendant to pay to the plaintiff a certain fine for every single act of non compliance , and (b) order his (personal) arrest for a period up to one year. In case of a continual infringement of the judgment, the penalties due are equal in number with the respective acts, unless these acts have the natural unity of one single action. Therefore, if an order is not complied with, any assets of the unsuccessful party may be seized for the collection of the amounts due. It is, nevertheless, the order for the (personal) arrest of the defendant, which persuades parties eventually to comply with such judgments.

Note: This article is not intended to be exhaustive and specific legal advice should be sought in relation to any specific circumstances.