New trademark law raises jurisdictional problem
Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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 ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Based on surveys covering more than 25,000 in-house lawyers, the series provides insights into what law firms must score highly on when pitching to in-house counsel
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Tony Nguyen, who returned to Fish & Richardson this month after a year travelling overseas, tells Managing IP how and why he took the plunge
Tom Treutler, who previously managed the Vietnamese office of Tilleke & Gibbins, has joined East IP
Counsel discuss upcoming AI and data privacy legislation and what they’ve learned since Chile joined the Madrid Protocol
INTA has postponed its planned Annual Meeting in Dubai, but the organisation should think carefully about whether it wants to go there at all
The firm has named its new managing director after its former Asia head resigned earlier this year
As law firms explore how best to support clients at the UPC, members of the UPCLA network believe they have found the best of both worlds
The Industry Patent Quality Charter hosted a conference in which it discussed the importance of granting high-quality patents
Julia Holden explains why, if she weren’t in IP, she would be directing and producing live English-language theatre
Gift this article