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

Greek court rules on trademark infringement in connection to UK-domiciled entities after Brexit

Sponsored by


Evangelia Sioumala of Patrinos & Kilimiris looks at a recent judgment that examines the applicability of Regulations 1215/2012 and 2017/1001 when it comes to entities domiciliated in UK, following Brexit

The Athens Multi Bench Court of First Instance, Special Department of Commercial Law, recently had to deal with the question of whether it had jurisdiction to decide on a case concerning trademark infringement, where the defendant was an entity domiciliated in the UK.

The plaintiff was a Greek company and the owner of three trademarks (two national and one EUTM) which were alleged to be infringed in Greece. The main infringement action was filed on May 2 2019, while the case was heard on January 20 2021.  

Assessing the issue of the choice of jurisdiction in the above case, the court inevitably dealt with the relevant provisions of Regulations (EU) Nos. 2017/1001 and 1215/2012.

In this respect, the court stated that the provisions of the Regulations 1215/2012 and 2017/1001 are directly applicable to any action against UK domiciliaries until December 31 2020, that is the date of expiry of the transitional period after provided for under 2019/C 384 I/01.

Furthermore, it was held that the decisive factor to determine the applicability of the above-mentioned EU legislation in connection with a UK-based entity is the time, when the main infringement action was filed, whereas other factors, such as the hearing date or the day, when the judgment is to be delivered are not relevant in this respect.

In view of the above, the Greek court ruled that it was within its jurisdiction to try the case, regardless of the fact that the hearing took place on January 20 2021, i.e. after the expiry of the transitional period mentioned above, since the main action was filed on May 2 2019, i.e. before the expiry of the transitional period at issue.


Evangelia Sioumala

Associate, Patrinos & Kilimiris




more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The IPO must change its approach and communicate with IP owners about its attempts at clearing up the trademark register
Counsel are looking at enforceability, business needs and cost savings when filing for patents overseas
James Perkins, member at Cole Schotz in Texas, reveals how smaller tech companies can protect themselves when dealing with larger players
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The EUIPO management board must provide the Council of the EU with a performance assessment before it can remove the executive director
The European Commission confirmed that plans for a unitary SPC will be published in April alongside reforms to the SEP system
The court held that SEP implementers could be injuncted or directed to pay royalties before trial if they are deemed to be unwilling licensees
Patentees should feel cautious optimism over the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal’s decision in G2/21, say European patent attorneys
Significant changes to the standard of law are unlikely, say sources, who note that some justices seemed sceptical that the parties disagreed on the legal standard
Sources say the High Court of Australia’s ruling that reputation is immaterial in trademark infringement cases could stop famous brands from muscling out smaller players