Belvedere Vodka Wins Greek Trademark Appeal Over ‘Belvedere Mykonos Club’

In a significant ruling for international brand protection, the Greek Administrative Court of Appeal has upheld a trademark opposition filed by the Polish vodka company Polmos Żyrardów, owner of the globally recognized Belvedere and Belvedere Intense marks.

The decision (No. 875/2025) reverses earlier judgments and cancels the registration of the ‘Belvedere Mykonos Club’ trademark, which had been filed for entertainment services under Class 41.

Background: Alcohol vs. Entertainment

The original application for ‘Belvedere Mykonos Club’ covered nightclub and entertainment services, prompting Polmos Żyrardów to oppose it based on its earlier rights in the ‘Belvedere’ brand for alcoholic beverages under Class 33. However, both the Greek Trademarks Office and the Administrative Court of First Instance rejected the opposition, citing a lack of similarity between the goods and services at issue.

The lower court reasoned that alcoholic drinks and entertainment services operate in unrelated markets. It further dismissed arguments based on bad faith and enhanced protection for well-known marks, stating that the shared term “Belvedere” was weakly distinctive and commonly associated with scenic views or tourist destinations. The court concluded that consumers were unlikely to be confused between a vodka brand and a Mykonos nightclub.

Court of Appeal: Complementary Goods & Consumer Perception

On appeal, however, the Court of Appeal adopted a more expansive interpretation of likelihood of confusion. It emphasized the dominant role of the word “Belvedere” in both marks and noted that the additional terms “Mykonos” and “Club” were merely descriptive, contributing little to brand differentiation.

Crucially, the court found that alcoholic beverages and nightclub services are complementary in nature. It reasoned that a consumer encountering “Belvedere Mykonos Club” in a nightlife setting could plausibly assume a commercial link to the Belvedere vodka brand—such as sponsorship, co-branding, or ownership.

The judgment aligns closely with EU case law, which allows for a global assessment of confusion, including the possibility of brand association even where the goods and services are not identical.

Outcome: Opposition Upheld

As a result, the court overturned both the Trademarks Office decision and the lower court ruling, annulled the acceptance of the ‘Belvedere Mykonos Club’ trademark, and upheld the opposition in full.

Legal Significance

This ruling reinforces the principle that trademark opposition cases must consider not just similarity but commercial complementarity between goods and services. It also affirms the strength of well-known international brands in the Greek legal system and demonstrates the willingness of Greek courts to apply EU trademark principles consistently.

As noted by Maria Kilimiris of Patrinos & Kilimiris, the case illustrates the growing importance of consumer perception and context of use in opposition proceedings, especially where lifestyle and luxury brands intersect with services in the hospitality and entertainment sectors.