New trademark law raises jurisdictional problem
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

The court criticised Oppo’s attempts to delay proceedings and imposed a penalty, adding that the Chinese company may need to pay more if the trial isn’t concluded this year
Miguel Hernandez explains how he secured victory for baby care company Naterra in his first oral argument before the Federal Circuit
The UPC judges are wrong – restricting access to court documents, and making parties appoint a lawyer only to have a chance of seeing them, is madness
The group, which includes the Volkswagen, Seat and Audi brands, is now licensed to use SEPs owned by more than 60 patent owners
Managing IP’s Max Walters appeared on the latest episode of ‘Two IPs in a pod’, a regular podcast hosted by the UK patent attorney body, to discuss AI, awards and more
Sources at law firms say they have spent more than three years waiting for IP regulations and explain how the delay is affecting their business
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Managing IP will host a ceremony in London on April 11 to reveal the winners of the EMEA Awards 2024
Lawyers reveal what trends they have noticed in the Western District of Texas and the advice they have been giving clients as a result
Concerns over the EU’s proposed SEP Regulation are based on little empirical support, say Benno Buehler and Kilian Mueller of Charles River Associates
Gift this article