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

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

Counsel reveal how a proposal to create separate briefings for discretionary denials at the USPTO could affect their PTAB strategies
The UK Supreme Court rejected the firm’s appeal against an earlier ruling because it did not raise an arguable point of law
Loes van den Winkel, attorney at Arnold & Siedsma, explains why clients' enthusiasm is contagious and why her job does not mean managing fashion models
Allen & Gledhill partner Jia Yi Toh shares her experience of representing the winning team in the first-ever case filed under Singapore’s new fast-track IP dispute resolution system
In-house lawyers reveal how they balance cost, quality, and other criteria to get the most from their relationships with external counsel
Dario Pietrantonio of Robic discusses growth opportunities for the firm and shares insights from his journey to managing director
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Law firms that pay close attention to their client relationships are more likely to win repeat work, according to a survey of nearly 29,000 in-house counsel
The EMEA research period is open until May 31
Practitioners analyse a survey on how law firms prove value to their clients and reflect on why the concept can be hard to pin down
Gift this article