Technology & IP Disputes.

Greek civil procedure allows for preliminary injunctions (ασφαλιστικά μέτρα) specifically because some situations cannot wait for a full trial, which can otherwise take years. Where the applicant can show a prima facie case and a genuine, urgent risk of harm if the court does not act, a hearing can often be obtained within days to a few weeks, and in genuinely urgent cases an ex parte temporary order may be available even before the other side is heard. The speed and the outcome depend heavily on how well the evidence is prepared before the application is filed — this is why we treat evidence gathering as the first step, not an afterthought, in every infringement matter.

Disputes over .gr and .ελ domains are handled through a dedicated dispute resolution procedure administered by the Greek registry, decided by an arbitration committee rather than the ordinary courts — a faster and less expensive route than full litigation, though it is limited to remedies such as cancellation or transfer of the domain rather than damages. Where damages or broader relief are needed, or where the registrant is using the domain for active trademark infringement or counterfeiting, we pursue that alongside or instead of the registry procedure. For non-Greek domains — .com.net and other generic top-level domains — the equivalent route is a UDRP complaint, which follows a similar logic but under different rules and a different forum.

Yes — misappropriation of trade secrets and confidential business information can give rise to both a civil claim for damages and injunctive relief, and, depending on the conduct, potential criminal liability under provisions addressing breach of trust, industrial espionage and related offences. In practice, most businesses that discover a former employee has taken confidential information prioritise the civil route first, because it moves faster and can secure an injunction and damages directly, while a parallel criminal complaint can add pressure and, in some cases, support evidence gathering. We assess both routes at the outset and recommend the sequencing that best protects the client's commercial position.

It usually starts with a specific triggering event — a customer stops paying under a SaaS agreement while continuing to use the software, an audit reveals usage beyond the licensed scope, or a vendor terminates a licence the customer disputes was validly terminated. We first assess the contract itself: what does it actually say about termination, audit rights and remedies for breach, and does the conduct in question actually breach it. Many of these disputes resolve through negotiated settlement once the contractual position is clear, but where they do not, we litigate for specific performance, damages, or an injunction restraining continued use of software under a terminated or breached licence — including, where relevant, disputes over open-source licence compliance.

Yes — our England & Wales dual qualification means we advise directly on the English-law and strategic dimension of a cross-border IP matter, which matters where an infringer, a former employee or a counterfeit supply chain has a footprint in both countries. Rather than leaving you to instruct and coordinate a separate English firm yourself, we plan the overall strategy as one matter from the outset and work closely with instructed English correspondent counsel on the enforcement steps taken there, including the sequencing of any interim relief.

Act before confronting the individual or their new employer wherever possible, since early warning often leads to evidence being deleted or altered. Relevant material typically includes device and system access logs showing what was accessed, downloaded or transferred in the weeks before departure, copies of the employment contract and any NDA or confidentiality undertaking actually signed, email and file-sharing activity, and any communications suggesting the information was solicited by or shared with the new employer. We can advise on forensic preservation steps — including engaging a forensic IT specialist where appropriate — before any formal demand is sent, so the evidentiary position is not compromised by tipping off the other side too early.