Internal draft protocol specification derived from the Mitos administrative record
Ref: Mitos 534080 · Law 4679/2020
Trademark Registry Authority · Greece
Hellenic Industrial Property Organisation (OBI)
Trademark electronic filing protocol
Institutional framework
Institution
The electronic filing of a trademark is the administrative procedure through which a filing submitted to the Trademarks Directorate of the Hellenic Industrial Property Organisation (OBI) is examined, published, exposed to opposition, and—if all legal gates are satisfied—entered in the Trademark Registry.
The procedure is governed principally by Law 4679/2020, especially Articles 2, 4, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 29, and 87. Institutionally, the procedure combines three different legal functions inside one filing chain:
- formal admissibility of the filing,
- substantive examination on absolute grounds for inadmissibility,
- and registry inscription of the right after the opposition window closes.
Institutional structure
The competent operating body is OBI / Trademarks Directorate. The source record also names the Ministry of Development as the responsible body in a supervisory sense, but the filing, examination, publication, and registry operations are carried out by OBI.
Within the procedure, different officer roles appear:
- the officer performing the formal completeness check,
- the examiner conducting the substantive review,
- the prior-search function that supports publication and notice,
- and the registry officer who performs the terminal inscription.
Normative structure
The procedure is not exhausted by the act of submission. A filing does not become a registered right merely because it is lodged electronically. It must pass through four distinct legal states:
- it must become a formally admissible filing with a recognized filing date;
- it must survive examination on absolute grounds;
- it must remain unblocked during the three-month opposition window after publication;
- only then may it be entered in the Trademark Registry, activating the protected ten-year right.
Procedural consequences
Three consequences define the procedure's operative logic:
- Formal defects do not immediately terminate the matter; they open a 30-day cure period.
- Adverse decisions at the formal or substantive stage are challengeable before the Administrative Committee on Trademarks.
- Positive examination does not immediately finalize the right; it opens a third-party opposition period that must close before registration may occur.
Governing principles (4)
Formal legality of the filing
A filing cannot enter the merits stage until the legally required minimum filing elements exist and the authority grants a filing date.
Absolute-grounds control
The registry must refuse signs that fail the statutory absolute-grounds test before publication and registration.
Third-party opposition window
Acceptance at the merits stage does not finalize the right; a bounded opposition window must first run its course.
Registry constitution of the right
The protected trademark right becomes operational through final registry inscription after the procedural gates have been cleared.
Protocol topology
Commitment points (3)
Formal admissibility and filing-date grant
The Trademarks Directorate reviews whether the filing meets the minimum legal elements required for recognition as a trademark application. A compliant filing receives a filing date. A deficient filing receives a cure notice with a 30-day correction period; failure to cure leads to archive.
Mandatory evidence
Possible outcomes
Authority
- Formal examiner, Trademarks Directorate, OBI
Legal basis
- Law 4679/2020 Art. 21
- Law 4679/2020 Art. 22
- Mitos 534080 steps 1-5
Disagree?
- •
Administrative Committee on Trademarks
For outcomes: ARCHIVED
Window: P60D
Substantive examination on absolute grounds
The trademark examiner assesses the filing against the absolute grounds for inadmissibility. If accepted, the filing is published and exposed to opposition; if rejected, the filer receives an appealable adverse decision.
Mandatory evidence
Possible outcomes
Authority
- Trademark examiner, Trademarks Directorate, OBI
- Prior-search officer, OBI
Legal basis
- Law 4679/2020 Art. 4
- Law 4679/2020 Art. 25
- Law 4679/2020 Art. 29
- Mitos 534080 steps 6-8
Disagree?
- •
Administrative Committee on Trademarks
For outcomes: REJECTED ABSOLUTE GROUNDS
Window: P60D
- •
Administrative Committee on Trademarks
For outcomes: ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION
Window: P3M
Final registration in the Trademark Registry
Once the opposition period has elapsed without opposition, the competent registry officer enters the mark in the Trademark Registry. The filing procedure closes and the ten-year protected-right state becomes operative.
Mandatory evidence
Possible outcomes
Authority
- Registry officer, Trademarks Directorate, OBI
Legal basis
- Law 4679/2020 Art. 25
- Law 4679/2020 Art. 87
- Mitos 534080 steps 9-10
Temporal constraints (5)
| Type | Duration | Reference | On Expiry |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plazo | 30 días | cp formal completeness | AUTO_CLOSE |
| Plazo | 60 días | cp formal completeness outcome date | WARN |
| Plazo | 60 días | cp substantive examination outcome date | WARN |
| Ventana | P0D → P3M | cp substantive examination outcome date — cp substantive examination outcome date | — |
| Vigencia | 10 años | registered trademark right | REQUIRE_RENEWAL |
Evidence checklist
Mandatory
| Evidence | Source | |
|---|---|---|
| Trademark filing request submitted through the electronic filing portal. | APPLICANT | |
| Representation of the sign for which trademark protection is sought (visual, verbal, sound, or other form). Required under Art. 2 of Law 4679/2020. | APPLICANT | |
| Applicant identity and contact details required to constitute the filing. | APPLICANT | |
| List of goods and services by Nice class as stated in the filing. The filing fee scales with the number of Nice classes covered. | APPLICANT | |
| Proof of payment of the filing fee required for admissibility (€100 base per class; additional classes incur incremental charges up to a maximum of €980). Legal basis: Art. 87 par. 1 of Law 4679/2020. | APPLICANT | |
| Record showing either direct filing by the applicant or the designation of the filing agent / representative. | APPLICANT | |
| Record showing that the filing has passed the formal admissibility gate and obtained a filing date. | OFFICIAL | |
| Publication record showing examiner acceptance and opening of the opposition window on the OBI website. | OFFICIAL | |
| Record showing that the three-month opposition period (Art. 25, Law 4679/2020) has elapsed without a filed opposition blocking registration. | OFFICIAL |
Good Practice
| Evidence | Source | |
|---|---|---|
| Power-of-attorney documentation designating the attorney representative, required when the filing is made through legal counsel. | APPLICANT | |
| Attorney fee receipt (pre-collection voucher) required when the filing is made by an attorney-in-fact under a power of attorney. | APPLICANT | |
| Corporate authorization or incorporation documentation where the applicant is a legal entity (articles of association, Official Gazette representation announcement, GEMI notification, or power of attorney). | APPLICANT |
Glossary
Historical context
The rendered specification follows the internal structure visible in the Mitos administrative record for service 534080 (source: https://id.mitos.gov.gr/534080, retrieved 2026-05-02, MediaWiki Revisions API, revision 381215). That record exposes a relatively complete trademark-filing chain compared with most registry procedures: a formal gate, a merits-stage examination, explicit appeal language, an explicit opposition period, and a final software-mediated registry act.
Accordingly, this rendering treats the procedure as a three-stage protocol rather than a flat service transaction. The filing-date grant, the examiner's merits determination, and the final registry inscription are modeled as separate commitment points because each carries a distinct institutional effect, legal trigger, and downstream consequence.
Open questions
- The terminal registry act is rendered as CLOSE because it implements the prior merits-stage acceptance and finalizes the file, but the alternative DECIDE reading remains legally plausible.
- The opposition path is represented here as part of the protocol's recourse and temporal structure; in a larger protocol system it may be preferable to express it as an explicit linked downstream procedure.
- The source clearly identifies the challenge windows but is thinner on the internal procedure of the Administrative Committee on Trademarks, so that downstream forum is specified only to the level the administrative record supports.