Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

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

New trademark law raises jurisdictional problem

Sponsored by

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

Counsel are eying domestic industry, concurrent PTAB proceedings and heightened scrutiny of cases before institution
Jack Daniel’s has a good chance of winning its dispute over dog toys, but SCOTUS will still want to protect free speech, predict sources
AI users and lawyers discuss why the rulebook for registering AI-generated content may create problems and needs further work
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
A technical effect must still be evident in the original patent filing, the EBoA said in its G2/21 decision today, March 23
Brands should not be deterred from pursuing lookalike producers, and an unfair advantage claim could be the key, say Emma Teichmann and Geoff Steward at Stobbs
Justice Mellor’s highly anticipated ruling surprised SEP owners and reassured implementers that the UK may not be so hostile after all
The England and Wales High Court's judgment comes ahead of a separate hearing concerning one of the patents-in-suit at the EPO
While the rules allow foreign firms to open local offices and offer IP services, a ban on litigation and practising Indian law could mean little will change
A New York federal court heard oral arguments this week in a copyright case pitting publishing giants against a digital library