Maradona Case: International Jurisdiction in a Trademark Revindication Claim

In a new confrontation between the heirs of Diego Maradona and his former lawyer Matías Morla and the company Sattvica SA, the Division I of the Federal Court of Appeals y Civil and Commercial Matters had to determine whether the Argentine judges had international jurisdiction to hear the claim for revindication (and the alternate petition for invalidation) of the trademark registrations related to Diego Maradona granted abroad in the name of Morla and Sattvica.

The claim was brought by the estate of Diego Maradona seeking the recovery of foreign trademark rights that would belong to them which, they argued, had been subtracted through different illegal actions attributed to Morla and Sattvica.

The Court considered that this was an action of a personal nature concerning the sphere of civil liability of non-contractual source and analyzed the rules relevant to determine international jurisdiction.

Thus, based on the provisions of the Montevideo Treaties of International Civil Law of 1889 and 1940, which regulate international jurisdiction, and the rules of international jurisdiction of domestic source provided for in the Argentine legal system for actions based on the existence of civil liability, the Court ruled that the Argentine judges should decide on the civil liability for the alleged misappropriation of intangible rights registered abroad that would be part of the deceased’s estate since all the defendants had acknowledged that they were domiciled in Argentina, where Diego Maradona's estate is being processed, and for presenting the closest proximity to the case.

Consequently, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the lower court which had accepted the plea of lack of jurisdiction raised by Morla and Sattvica.