In the digital age, intellectual property rights (IPRs) such as trademarks, copyrights, source codes and softwares are not only valuable but also vulnerable. Their intangible nature makes them susceptible to immediate dissipation, assignment, or exploitation in ways that can irreversibly undermine their value. Recognising this, Cypriot courts have developed a robust approach to the interim protection of IPRs pending the final adjudication of a dispute.
Legal Framework for Interim Relief
The authority to grant interim relief in Cyprus is primarily derived from Section 32 of the Courts of Justice Law (Law 14/60). This provision grants the courts wide discretion to issue interim orders in any matter where it is just and convenient to do so. The provision is particularly important in the context of IPRs, where timely judicial intervention can be the only means of ensuring that rights are not rendered meaningless by the time a final judgment is issued.
The courts have consistently reaffirmed that the issuance of interim orders, particularly those of a prohibitory or preservatory nature, must satisfy three cumulative conditions:
1. A serious question to be tried – namely, the existence of an arguable or prima facie claim.
2. A probability that the applicant is entitled to a remedy – this means a real possibility, not a certainty, that the applicant will succeed.
3. That it is difficult or impossible to do justice at a later stage unless the order is granted – often referred to as the "irreparable harm" requirement.
Application in the Context of Intellectual Property
In cases involving intellectual property, the third condition becomes particularly significant. IP rights can be exploited, transferred, or assigned in ways that are difficult to trace and even harder to reverse. Once such rights are commercialised or alienated, any future enforcement or quantification of loss becomes speculative, undermining the very notion of justice. Accordingly, courts have emphasised that interim orders are not merely tools to preserve physical or monetary assets, but also to preserve the status quo in relation to intangible rights, which, if not protected in the interim, may be extinguished in practice.
In evaluating the necessity and proportionality of interim measures, courts consider, inter alia:
* Whether the IPRs at issue (e.g. copyright, trademark) form the core asset of the respondent or a substantial part of its business activities.
* Whether there is credible evidence of previous non-compliance with contractual or legal obligations concerning the use or monetisation of such rights.
* The degree of control the respondent has over the IPRs, including the ability to assign, license, or otherwise exploit them without further oversight.
* Whether the damage that would be caused by an unrestrained use or transfer of the IPRs is quantifiable, or whether it would give rise to irreparable harm.
* Whether there is a real risk of dissipation or alienation of the IPRs before the case is finally adjudicated.
Crucially, the courts acknowledge that the value of IP rights is inherently dynamic and closely tied to their exclusivity. Once third parties acquire or exploit such rights, even temporarily, their value is diluted. An interim order can thus serve as a shield to prevent any such exploitation pending the resolution of the dispute.
Balancing Interests and Discretionary Power
While courts are prepared to intervene to protect IPRs, this power is not exercised lightly. The balance of convenience – or the “balance of hardship” – remains central to the court’s discretionary decision. The court must weigh the potential harm to the applicant if relief is denied, against the harm to the respondent if relief is granted. To that end, courts may tailor orders to allow for the continuation of business operations, while still preserving the rights in dispute. For example, certain exceptions may be carved out for essential expenses or for employees' remuneration, provided the core asset—the IPR—is not dissipated or alienated. The guiding principle remains: interim relief is granted not to prejudge the outcome, but to ensure that any future judgment will not be rendered meaningless by irreversible acts undertaken during the litigation process.
Conclusion
In Cyprus, the interim protection of intellectual property rights is an essential judicial mechanism that ensures meaningful adjudication of rights that are intangible by nature. The courts’ willingness to intervene and grant interim measures—when supported by credible evidence and satisfying the statutory criteria—reflects a deep understanding of the economic and legal realities surrounding intellectual property. As such, interim orders serve not only to protect the applicant’s rights, but also to uphold the integrity of the judicial process itself.
For more information regarding the protection of IP rights and or the issuance of Court Orders pending proceedings in relation to IP rights, contact us at con.clerides@clerideslegal.com