Ελληνικά
English
EspañolAcquittal of two Rhodes residents for use of another party's trademark in an online post - No intent was established, the Heraklion Magistrates' Court ruled
06-12-2025
The Three-Member Magistrates' Court of Heraklion acquitted two defendants, a 35-year-old man from Rhodes and a 33-year-old British woman, who had been charged with violating Law 4679/2020 on trademarks, over an online listing that displayed another party's registered mark. The court found that neither intent nor their participation in the disputed act had been proven.
The case began in late 2020, when the owner of a mobile phone shop in Heraklion spotted a computer sales listing on Facebook that used her business's logo and name. The post directed users to a fake page named "Humac", creating the impression that it was an official activity of the company. The police investigation traced the IP address to Rhodes, leading to the prosecution of the then-married couple.
During the hearing, the defence - through counsel Mr Dimos Moutafis - presented a full analysis of the case file, pointing out that there was no intention of unlawful use of the mark or any attempt to gain financially. The 35-year-old explained that his wife had responded to an online listing for remote work and, within a few hours, received from third parties photographic material and texts to post, without knowing that it was a scam. When he realised the true nature of the "collaboration", he cut off all contact.
The electronic traces and the brief period of communication confirmed that the post was made without knowledge or intent to violate third-party rights. The court concluded that it had not been proven beyond any doubt that the two defendants acted with common intent, as required by Article 45 of Law 4679/2020.
This decision underlines the importance of actual intent in establishing a trademark violation: the mere technical connection of a post to an IP address, or ignorance of the origin of content, is not sufficient for criminal liability, as long as conscious use of another party's mark is not proven.