NATIONAL LAW IMPLEMENTING THE ENFORCEMENT DIRECTIVE

A. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY LAW Given the fact that intellectual property rights are regulated with different laws in Greece, the implementation of the Enforcement Directive 2004/48 was also realised with different legal instruments and at different points of time. More specifically, Law 3524/2007 (Art. 2), which amended Law 2121/1993 (the Copyright Law – ‘Copyright, Related Rights and Cultural Matters’), harmonised the Greek Copyright and Related Rights legislation with the Enforcement Directive. The Patent Law 1733/1987 (‘Technology transfer, inventions and technological information’) had to wait until 2011 to be amended by Law 3966/2011 (Art. 53 paras 1 and 2) in order to be harmonised with the Enforcement Directive. The same Law (Law 3966/2011 – Art. 53 paras 5 and 6) implemented the Enforcement Directive regarding Industrial Designs, amending the relevant Presidential Decree 259/1997 (‘Implementing Provisions of the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Deposit of Industrial Designs as ratified with Law No. 2417/1996 and Provisions Concerning the National Title of Protection’) and topographies of semiconductor products, amending Presidential Decree 45/1991 ‘Legal Protection of Topographies of semiconductor products in compliance with Council Directive 87/54/EEC of 16 December 1986 as supplemented by Decisions 87/532/EEC and 88/311/EEC’. Finally, it was not until 2012 that the new Trademark Law, Law 4072/20126 was enacted, which among other regulations also harmonised the legislation for trademarks with the Enforcement Directive. Utility models are regulated in Article 19 Law 1733/1987 and enjoy the same protection as patents (Art. 19 para. 6 Law 1733/1987).

B. TRANSPOSITION ISSUES

Including issues related to Article 3 of the Enforcement Directive.

Member States should have transposed the Enforcement Directive in their national legislation by 29 April 2006. Nevertheless, the majority of Member States did not meet this challenge. Greece was included among these countries.?lthough the transposition in copyright and related rights was delayed by nine months, the delay regarding industrial property rights was more substantial, thus extending to more than fi ve years. These delays were not without repercussions for the market. Due to this delay in transposing the Enforcement Directive, with regard to industrial property rights, it has been supported in theory (and in the case law) that the provisions of Law 3524/2007 – which amended Copyright Law 2121/1993 – applied mutatis mutandis to other intellectual property rights.