Cyprus

When two or more parties collaborate on a creative or innovative project, establishing clear ownership arrangements of the resulting intellectual property (IP) is crucial. Given that IP rights often represent the most valuable asset generated from such collaborations, how these rights are negotiated can significantly impact the project's success and its future opportunities for licensing, sale or enforcement. Joint ownership of IP can arise by explicit written agreements. For instance, a patent may list multiple inventors and in the absence of specific ownership arrangements or employment agreements addressing ownership, each named investor is automatically considered a co-owner of the entire patent unless an agreement states otherwise. Similarly, a team of programmers developing a new application might share copyright rights as co-authors. In another scenario, two companies collaborating on a project may agree to split costs equally and jointly own trademarks or other related IP rights as a matter of fairness. Intellectual property grants its owners exclusive rights and can be a major component of a company's assets. These rights can be sold, licensed to third parties, enforced through legal action against infringers, or used as collateral for loans, thereby enhancing a company's value. While joint ownership might seem like a straightforward and cost-effective solution, it can also lead to complex challenges down the line. Proper planning and agreements are crucial to avoiding future disputes and maximising the value of the intellectual property. Why Co-ownership can Cause Problems? A patent grants its owner the exclusive right to prevent others from commercially using the invention. When multiple parties own a patent together, that exclusivity becomes weaker. Without everyone's approval, no one can give a license to a third party, which limits the rights of all owners. Consequently, co-owners may have different ideas about how to use, license, or exploit the IP, disagreements can arise, which might lead to costly disputes. Additionally, sharing income or royalties can become a source of conflict if the parties have different expectations about how profits should be divided. Copyright protects creators by letting them prevent others from copying their work. Who owns the copyright depends on how the work was created. Typically, an employer owns the copyright if the work was produced by employees within the scope of their employment. If no ownership provisions apply and no other agreement exists, the work is owned by its creator. When multiple people create a work together, like a book or a song, all of them must agree before giving someone exclusive rights to publish it. Many publishers prefer exclusive rights, therefore sharing ownership can make it harder to find a publisher. Each co-owner also is required to account for any profits made from the work with the others. This can become complex, especially when derivative works are based on the original. Unlike patents, a co-owner of a copyright can enforce it against third parties without needing consent from other owners. Notable case A notable case is the copyright dispute among members of the band Pink Floyd. Waters left Pink Floyd in 1985 and began a legal battle with the band regarding their continued use of the name and material. As joint copyright holders of their music, conflicts arose, once Roger Waters left the group, particularly concerning the use and performance of shared works. The dispute revealed how joint ownership can create problems especially to the licensing, enforcement and future exploitation of the work. Therefore, enforcing rights against third parties (e.g., patent infringement) can be difficult when ownership is shared. All co-owners must act together, which isn't always feasible. Moreover, a trademark's primary purpose is to identify the specific source of goods or services. Joint ownership of a trademark is less common than joint ownership of patents or copyrights. Similar to patents and copyrights, an exclusive license cannot be granted without the consent of all owners. Additionally, in enforcement actions, one owner might license activities that the other views as infringement, potentially complicating the protection of the mark. Conclusion While co-ownership of intellectual property may seem a straightforward solution, it can lead to various issues that are best addressed through carefully drafted agreements at the beginning of a project. To minimise risks, alternative arrangements such as assigning sole ownership to one party with licensing rights granted to others or establishing clear joint ownership agreements are advisable. These agreements should explicitly specify IP ownership, detail how rights are shared among the involved parties, and outline procedures for potential scenarios such as enforcement, licensing, or sale of the IP rights. Xenia Kasapi, LL.B., LL.M., MCIArb Senior Advocate Head of the Intellectual Property & Data Protection E & G Economides LLC [email protected] www.economideslegal.com

What does it mean to run a business in a financial world that never stands still? The world of banking and finance is undergoing rapid transformation. From the rise of digital platforms and alternative payment systems to the expanding scope of regulatory oversight, today’s financial environment is more complex and fast-paced than ever. At the center of this change lies a crucial relationship between financial institutions, their clients, and the legal professionals who support them. At Elias Neocleous & Co LLC, we are seeing that the old-school way of doing legal work doesn’t always work anymore. It is not just about knowing the rules. It is about helping clients apply them in a way that fits how their business actually operates. Whether we are supporting a bank with its compliance framework or assisting a company with cross-border financing, our focus is on making legal processes practical and effective. As regulations grow stricter in areas such as anti-money laundering, data protection, and international financial conduct, financial institutions are under increasing pressure. These measures are vital for maintaining trust in the financial system, but they can also lead to delays, friction, and added stress for organisations and their clients. When compliance is handled poorly, the consequences go beyond fines or delays. It can result in another frustrated client and sometimes even a broken relationship with a bank, not because of wrongdoing but because of misinterpretation, rigid processes, or a failure to truly understand the client. In the past, ‘Know Your Customer’ was treated as more like a box-ticking exercise and, if we are honest, in some places it still is. Yet there is a growing recognition that today it must mean something deeper. Effective KYC is not exclusively about suspicion or endless investigation; it is about understanding. It is about knowing not only a client’s immediate needs, but also their ambitions for the future, and aligning those ambitions with the realities and opportunities of the financial system. When approached this way, KYC becomes far more than compliance, it becomes a foundation for trust, a guide for better decision-making, and a bridge to stronger, lasting partnership. This is where the right legal advice proves its true value. We work closely with clients to develop compliance policies that are not only legally sound but also realistic and efficient. This might involve advising on onboarding and know-your-customer procedures, helping a business restructure or reorganise, or even addressing GDPR and cybersecurity through the Tech Law Department of our Law Firm. Our Tech Law Department assists clients to comply with technology-related laws such as GDPR, DORA, NIS2, the Cyber Resilience Act (CRA), the AI Act, and the Cybersecurity Act. For us, every policy, every procedure, is ultimately about people, understanding their goals, easing their burdens, and creating space for them to grow. Too often, good businesses suffer not because they lack substance, but because they fail to present themselves in the way banks expect. It is a little like a CV: not everyone with great talent knows how to showcase it on paper. Beneath the surface, a company may have a strong record and a compelling story, but if that story is not expressed clearly, opportunities can be lost. Banks, for their part, excel at enforcing rules and ensuring that every regulation is observed. But sometimes, in focusing on the checklist, they miss the deeper picture, the essence of the client, the reasons behind a missing document, or the real strengths that lie just out of view. This is where we see our role: to connect the unseen dots, to help clients present their reality in its best light, and to ensure that valuable relationships are built on understanding rather than misunderstanding. We also support clients in their dealings with banks by ensuring that all the necessary paperwork is completed correctly. This includes forms such as UBO (Ultimate Beneficial Owner) declarations and providing clear explanations of the source of funds. By guiding clients through these steps, we aim to minimise errors or delays and keep the process moving smoothly. Supporting clients goes beyond compliance checklists, it means standing with them when questions, conflicts, or cross-border complexities arise. That is why we provide legal opinions on regulatory interpretation, assist in resolving disputes, and advise on structuring transactions across multiple jurisdictions. Our approach is designed to simplify complex processes and manage legal risks, helping clients move forward with greater clarity and confidence. We are also closely following developments in technology, particularly artificial intelligence, and how they are beginning to influence the legal and compliance landscape. In the financial sector, AI is increasingly used to assist with tasks such as document review and regulatory tracking. While we do not currently use AI tools for client-facing work, we are actively exploring how such technologies might be introduced safely and responsibly in the future. Confidentiality, accuracy, and compliance with regulatory standards remain key considerations, especially in a highly regulated environment like Cyprus. Internally, we are developing NeoLaw.ai, a platform designed to support our legal teams with research, document analysis, and the study of Cyprus case law. Although not a client-facing tool, NeoLaw.ai reflects our commitment to innovation and efficiency. By reducing time spent on repetitive tasks, it allows our lawyers to focus more on complex legal matters where expert judgement is essential. Whether you are a business expanding into new markets, an investor navigating regulatory risk, or an individual applying for finance, the way legal and compliance issues are handled can significantly affect your experience and may even define the entire journey of a business.  Clear and responsive legal support helps to avoid delays and uncertainty, and we believe this is key to getting things done properly. The legal profession continues to evolve, and in banking and finance the role of the lawyer is no longer confined to citing regulations or drafting documents. That world is gone. Our role has become something more human and more essential: protecting trust, uncovering what lies beneath the paperwork, and giving clients a voice in a system that often has little patience for nuance. Yet its core purpose remains unchanged: to serve people and support the systems that enable business and finance to operate fairly and transparently. What is changing is how we deliver that service, through smarter tools, stronger collaboration, and a clearer understanding of our clients’ real-world challenges. The financial world will only grow faster, more digital, and more demanding. That is a fact. What matters is how we respond to it. At Elias Neocleous & Co LLC we are proud to be part of this transformation. We choose to meet that future head-on, with sharper tools, broader vision, and the determination to make law serve people, not slow them down. As a Cyprus based firm, advising clients both locally and internationally, we are committed to providing legal support that is technically strong, commercially aware, and designed to help our clients move forward with clarity and confidence in an increasingly digital financial world. It means a legal partner who keeps pace with change and helps them stay one step ahead of it. Because in the end, true clarity is born where strict rules meet human understanding, and that is the space we choose to work in.    

The Latin maxim audi alteram partem, meaning “listen to the other side,” is a fundamental principle of natural justice. It safeguards access to justice and ensures a fair hearing for all parties—not only those formally joined in legal proceedings but also third parties whose rights may be affected. Its origins can arguably be traced back to ancient Greece. The renowned orator Demosthenes noted that the Athenian judicial oath—attributed by some, albeit uncertainly, to Solon—required judges to listen equally to both the prosecutor and the defendant (καὶ ἀκροάσομαι τε καὶ τοῦ κατηγόρου καὶ τοῦ ἀπολογουμένου ὁμοίως ἀμφοῖν). Although the audi alteram partem principle is widely applied in judicial systems worldwide, limited exceptions exist. These usually involve circumstances of urgency, public safety, or national security. Such exceptions must, however, be reasonable, proportionate, and justified in context. Natural justice and procedural fairness demand that parties directly or indirectly affected by legal proceedings are given the opportunity to be heard and to challenge decisions or procedures taken in their absence. The Audi Alteram Partem Principle in Cyprus under the Old Civil Procedure Rules Under the former Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), specifically Order 48, Rule 8(4), it was stated: “Any person (other than the applicant) affected by an order made ex parte may apply by summons to have it set aside or varied and the Court or Judge may set aside or vary such order on such terms as may seem just.” In Ktoridis Giannakis v. Alpha Bank Cyprus Ltd (2014) 1 C.L.R. 1173, the Supreme Court of Cyprus affirmed: “It is a well-established principle in our legal system, expressed by the Latin maxim audi alteram partem, that the court does not issue an order without first hearing the other party. However, by way of exception, the legislator, in certain cases, allows the granting of ex parte relief… Order 48(8)(4), which follows O.48(8)(1), concerns every order that is issued ex parte. Its objective is evidently to provide the possibility of reconsidering a matter that was decided ex parte, when the person affected wishes to exercise their fundamental right to be heard…” Although this rule affirmed the principle of audi alteram partem, the interpretation of “any person” under Rule 8(4) was restrictive. In Heli-Air v. Drescher (1988) 1 AAΔ 234, the Court held that this phrase did not extend to third parties unless they had applied to be formally joined in the proceedings: “We agree with the learned trial Judge that paragraph 4 of rule 8 of Order 48 does not in general give the right to a third person to apply by summons for the discharge or variation of an interim order issued in proceedings in which such a person is not a party. We do not accept the argument that a reference to ‘any person’ covers a person in the circumstances of this case where no application to be joined as a party was made and where the very ownership and right of possession of the subject property were in issue and were sought to be determined by the Court in the course of determining an application for the discharge or variation of an interim order”. Similarly, in Koui v. Christodoulou (2010) 1 Α.Α.Δ. 401, citing Heli Air,  the Supreme Court reaffirmed: “The words ‘any person’ in O.48, r.8(4) do not extend to persons in respect of whom no application for joinder has been filed, in proceedings where the substantive issues remain open”. These aforementioned rulings were received by legal practitioners with skepticism as they created confusion and also complicated the procedure unnecessarily.[1] This is because, in practice, third parties affected by an ex parte injunction often had no real connection to the main dispute or were not directly (or even indirectly) targeted by any claims. To remedy this, several judges in the interests of natural justice and fairness did not follow the strict letter of Heli Air and permitted such third parties to intervene for the limited purpose of challenging the ex parte order, without needing to be joined to the main action.[2] For example, In Gerd Jakob v. Ivan Ivanovich Mazur (2015), the Court held: “Since the interlocutory injunction may directly affect the applicants’ property interests… it would be unfair not to allow them to intervene… solely for the purposes of the interlocutory injunction.” The Approach under the New Civil Procedure Rules of 2023 The new Civil Procedure Rules  which came into force in September 2023 have provided much-needed clarity in this respect and remedied what could be described as unsatisfactory situation. Today, a third party individual or corporate entity affected by an ex parte order can challenge it without first being joined as a party to the main action. The Court of Appeal recently confirmed this position whilst reviewing a decision where the first instance court had (falsely) rejected an application by an affected party to intervene in the proceedings. On appeal, the Court addressed both the old and new CPR regimes. It particularly referred to New Rule 23.14, which reads: “23.14. Application to set aside or vary an order issued without notice (1) Any party or person affected by an order issued on an application which was not served on them before the order was issued may apply to set aside or vary the order. (2) A person who is not already a party to the action does not need to become a party solely for the purpose of submitting an application under Rule 23.14(1)…” The Appeal Court emphasized that neither the law nor the new rules require a person affected by an order to become a party to the action in order to challenge it. This interpretation is consistent with the decision in the English case of Cretanor Maritime Co. Ltd v. Irish Marine Ltd [1978] 1 WLR 966 and also aligns with New Rule 23.1, which allows such persons to be appointed by the court as “respondents” to the application rather than formal parties.   Conclusion The new Civil Procedure Rules represent a major advancement in ensuring access to justice and correcting procedural ambiguities. By affirming that those affected by court orders—regardless of party status—have the right to be heard, the Rules reinforce the fundamental value of audi alteram partem principle. This development replaces a previously rigid and overly formalistic approach with one grounded in fairness, clarity, practicality and, of course, natural justice.   By Chrysanthos Christoforou (Partner) and Maria Keliri (Associate) Elias Neocleous & Co LLC   [1] It is the opinion of the authors that reading between the lines of Harazim Richard (2016) 1 AAΔ 2850 one could argue that the judgments of Heli Air and Koui (above) received also judicial criticism. [2] See 1. Chivas Holdings (IP) Ltd v. Γενικού Εισαγγελέα κ.ά  (2011), 2. Nikolas Koumenidis a.o. v. Gerrard Culbert a.o. (2009,) 3. Gerd Jakob v. Ivan Ivanovich Mazur  (2015),

We are pleased to share that our firm has recently joined the Cyprus International Business Association (CIBA), an organization that plays a significant role in representing and supporting the interests of international businesses operating in Cyprus. Through this membership, we aim to contribute to CIBA’s ongoing efforts to promote a stable and business-friendly environment, while also remaining closely engaged with developments that affect the broader international business landscape. This step reflects our continued commitment to maintaining strong ties within the professional community and to supporting initiatives that encourage sustainable growth and collaboration.