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 2026

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 Life Sciences Awards is thrilled to present the shortlist for the 2026 Americas Awards
From Türkiye to Poland and Nigeria, firms with deep local roots continue to dominate the top tier, proving that market expertise can outweigh international scale in many CEE, Middle Eastern and African jurisdictions
Former Hoyng Rokh partner Simon Dack takes a leading PMAC role as busy firms continue to jostle for position
Franck Fougere, founder and managing partner of Ananda IP in Thailand, describes how the firm has developed a reputation for patent work and why he believes IP practice is set to change
After two decades at Kass International, Geetha Kandiah discusses the lessons that shaped her career, building an inclusive regional firm, and AI opportunities
Manisha Singh of LexOrbis discusses the need for commercial alignment with clients and why IP lawyers need to have curiosity at their core
As firms expand into integrated IP services, recent hires show the model's appeal – but high-profile departures reveal how quickly questions of depth and durability can emerge
In-house counsel say private practice firms either aren’t conveying sustainability messaging or simply ‘don’t care’, but a mindful approach to the topic could swing pitches
With patent filings stagnant, fewer clients litigating and market consolidation at play, Canadian firms are considering how to challenge the established players
IPH’s strategy of integrating acquired businesses into its larger premium brands, may offer an early signal of how externally funded IP firms will pursue scale, efficiency and market strength
Gift this article