New trademark law raises jurisdictional problem

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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 ros bottom lb

More from across our site

A complaint by the European Commission over China’s SEP practices and news of a new president at Nokia Technologies were among the top talking points this week
Brian Rosenthal explains how he and his team secured a rare directed verdict of non-infringement from Texas judge Alan Albright
US sources say they’ve had positive experiences working with Coke Morgan Stewart, and that her past experience at the office means there'll be no nasty surprises
At least four firms have made investments in transactional IP lawyers to help push deals in the life sciences and other tech sectors over the line
Louis Ederer, who worked at Arnold & Porter for 18 years, says he was excited to go back to a place where he already knew a lot of people
Practitioners and law firms should keep their eyes peeled as the shortlist for our annual Awards is set to be released
Shoosmiths, which hired a six-person IP team from Locke Lord to kick-start the year, says it is not finished there
The USPTO’s latest search tool has improved since it was first launched, though counsel still have to take care when trying to get optimal results for their clients
Scott Palmer, who took 16 lawyers with him when he moved from Perkins Coie to Loeb & Loeb, reveals how his Beijing-based team has hit the ground running
Coke Morgan Stewart previously spent 10 years in various USPTO roles before joining O’Melveny in 2023
Gift this article