Side effects of an effective trademark treatment in Greece
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 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement
Expert AnalysisLocal Insights

Side effects of an effective trademark treatment in Greece

Sponsored by


Manolis Metaxakis of Patrinos & Kilimiris says the Law on Trademarks now in force is a radical and healthy development, but uncertainty remains for trademark owners and legal practitioners regarding transitional issues

The new Law on Trademarks enacted in Greece (Law No 4679/2020) is not regarded as a mere implementation of Directive (EU) 2015/2436. In fact, it is a radical legal tool because all invalidity actions of all types – that is, all requests of invalidity/revocation and counter-actions of invalidity/cancellation – are initially, or on appeal, to be decided before the civil courts. According to the law previously applicable, all requests of invalidity/revocation were cases for the administrative courts to decide.

This is a shift towards a promising direction, taking into account that there are specialised panels in the Greek civil courts that maintain exclusive jurisdiction to decide on trademark cases, unlike the divisions of the administrative courts that were competent to hear the same types of cases under the Greek law previously applicable.

However, it is commonly accepted that no one is perfect, and nor is the Greek Law on Trademarks that is now in force. In particular, an issue has arisen as to the proper court to decide on appeals against decisions delivered by the Trademarks Administrative Commission on invalidity/revocation requests that were filed before the new law came into effect.

The transitional rules of the new Law on Trademarks provides that said cases shall be decided according to the law previously applicable. In this regard, there are two theories:

  • This type of case must be decided on the substantive provisions of the law previously applicable but under an appeal that must be filed before the civil courts, as provided by the present law; and

  • This type of case must be decided according to the law previously applicable in all respects; i.e., as regards the substance, as well as the competence, of the relevant court, meaning the administrative court.

The specialised IP court in Athens (a civil court) delivered a judgment on this issue in June 2023, under which the latter view was accepted. In particular, it was held that the civil courts have no jurisdiction to rule on appeal invalidity/revocation requests filed and decided by the Trademarks Administrative Commission before the enactment of the Law on Trademarks that is currently applicable.

This newborn issue is far from being regarded as resolved and much uncertainty is still present, which is not good news for trademark owners and legal practitioners.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

In a seminal ruling, the Beijing Internet Court said images generated by Stable Diffusion counted as original works
Boston-based John Lanza is hoping to work more with life sciences colleagues on the ‘exciting’ application of AI to drug discovery
The Delhi High Court has expressed its willingness to set global licensing terms in the Nokia-Oppo dispute, but it must deal with longstanding problems first
Some patent counsel are still encountering errors even though the USPTO has fully transitioned to the new system
A senior USPTO attorney spoke at a Nokia-sponsored event on the EU’s proposed SEP Regulation today, November 29
IP counsel are ‘flooded’ with queries from clients worried about deepfakes, but the law has so far come up short
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP practitioner about their life and career
Mathys & Squire has filed a test case that the firm hopes will make UPC pleadings available by default
Multiple representatives and their teams can now work on cases using the online CMS, but not everyone can submit documents
James Lawrence, partner at Addisons, explains how he convinced the full Federal Court of Australia to back his client in a patent dispute concerning mining safety equipment