New trademark law raises jurisdictional problem

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

New trademark law raises jurisdictional problem

Sponsored by

patrinos-logo.png
Trademark - rubber stamp with binder in the office

One of the most radical changes introduced by the new Greek Trademark Law, effective since March 20 2020, is that the decisions of the Trademarks Administrative Commission handed down in cancellation action proceedings, either on grounds of invalidity or non-use, can be appealed before the specialised IP Single Bench Court of First Instance in Athens. Under the previous law, it was the Administrative Court of First Instance in Athens that ruled on appeal in these cases.

This is certainly good news in several respects, bearing in mind that these appeals are expected to be decided faster and by a specialised IP court. It would be a further step forward, if the Greek legislature decides in the near future the same should apply in relation to appeals filed in the context of opposition proceedings as well.

However, there is nevertheless an issue regarding those cases falling within the period of time that may be characterised as transitional. For example, in cases, where the decision of the Trademarks Administrative Commission was handed down before March 20 2020 and the deadline for filing an appeal lapses at a date after March 20 2020, it is uncertain which court has jurisdiction to rule upon an appeal that may be filed against the decision.

The new Greek Trademark Law is unfortunately not clear on that. In legal theory, there might be a view that the IP Single Bench Court of First Instance in Athens has jurisdiction to rule upon all appeals that were filed on/after March 20 2020. Another point of view is that the decisive point should not be the date of the appeal's filing but the date when the cancellation action concerned was filed instead.

This is a matter that will be tackled in the near future, as both the above-mentioned courts of law will inevitably be called on to deal with this unnecessarily tricky question.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The five-partner team enhances Sheppard Mullin’s technology and life sciences capabilities, expanding its IP practice to more than 130 practitioners
In an exclusive interview, Rouse CEO Luke Minford, Arnold & Siedsma managing partner Steve Duxbury, and Wrays executive chairman Gary Cox discuss plans to build the world’s first ‘truly integrated’ global IP services business
Benjamin Grzimek, partner at Casalonga’s new Düsseldorf office, believes the firm is well-placed to challenge German UPC dominance
A lot of the reporting around the Anthropic settlement misses something critical: it isn’t that relevant to AI training, argues Rebecca Newman at Addleshaw Goddard
Justin Hill and Marie Jansson Heeks, part of an 18-strong team to have joined Crowell & Moring, explain why IP client advice must go beyond only being called upon for patent disclosure
To mark the EUIPO having processed five million EUTM and REUD applications, Managing IP speaks to the most prolific representatives to uncover how they stay at the top of their game
The merger marks Rouse’s second M&A deal within a month, and will provide access to Arnold & Siedsma’s UPC offering
Simon Tønners explains why IP provides the chance to work with some of the most passionate, risk-taking, and emotionally invested clients
The co-leaders of the firm’s new SEP practice group say the team will combine litigation and prosecution expertise to guide clients through cross-border challenges
Boasting four former Spruson & Ferguson leaders and with offices in Hong Kong and Singapore, the IP firm aims to provide fast, practical advice to clients
Gift this article