232.11
MSCHGLPM
CH
CH
Art. 12 Legge federale del 28 agosto 1992 sulla protezione dei marchi e delle indicazioni di provenienza (LPM) - Conseguenze del mancato uso
LPM; Titolo primo: Marchi; Capitolo 1: Disposizioni generali
Art. 12 LPM · Conseguenze del mancato uso
Il titolare che, per un periodo ininterrotto di cinque anni dalla scadenza inutilizzata del termine di opposizione o dalla fine della procedura di opposizione, non ha usato il marchio in relazione ai prodotti o ai servizi per i quali esso è rivendicato non può più far valere il diritto al marchio, salvo che gravi motivi giustifichino il mancato uso.
Se l’uso o la ripresa dell’uso del marchio avviene dopo oltre cinque anni, il diritto al marchio è ripristinato con l’effetto della priorità originaria, a condizione che nessuno abbia invocato il mancato uso ai sensi del capoverso 1 prima di tale data.
Chi invoca il mancato uso del marchio lo deve rendere verosimile; la prova dell’uso incombe allora al titolare del marchio.
Decisioni giudiziarie che applicano questa disposizione (85)
B-3030/2022 (Art. 12 Abs. 1 MSchG)
MONDO Trademark Cancellation for Non-Use
Cited as the legal basis for trademark cancellation due to non-use.
B-5828/2023 (Art. 12 Abs. 1 MSchG)
CANNAVITAS Trademark Dispute: Genuine Use Insufficient for Opposition
Cited as the provision that a trademark right can no longer be asserted if the mark has not been used for five consecutive years.
HE240069 · zh (Art. 12 Abs. 1‒3 MSchG)
Radio D._____ Trademark Abandonment Preliminary Injunction Application Dismissal
Cited in the reasoning concerning the loss of trademark rights due to non-use over five years, relevant to the main issue being decided.
C/21608/2022 · ge (Art. 12 al. 1 LPM)
Holding Company v. Foundation (Trademark Use in Class 41)
The main ground for rejecting the claim was the lack of proof of serious use of the mark for the services in Class 41 over the preceding five years, leading to the loss of the right to the mark for those services.
1A 23 13 · lu (Art. 12 Abs. 1 MSchG)
SCHNITTSCHUTZ Trademark: Partial Invalidity for Non-Use, Distinctiveness Upheld
Cited in conjunction with the use requirement, setting the consequence (loss of rights) for non-use over a five-year period.
B-3745/2022 (Art. 12 Abs. 1 MSchG)
Shelby Trademark Cancellation: Genuine Use Proven Through Licensing
Cited as the basis for losing trademark rights due to non-use for five consecutive years, unless important reasons for non-use exist.
B-1958/2022 (Art. 12 Abs. 1 MSchG)
Trademark Non-Use Defense in Opposition Proceedings
This provision forms the legal basis for the non-use of a trademark and is cited in the context of the court's consideration of the non-use plea.
B-371/2023 (Art. 12 Abs. 1 MSchG)
Automotive Trademark Dispute: ES8 vs. S8, Likelihood of Confusion Found for Motor Vehicles, Not Bicycles
This provision states that a trademark right can no longer be asserted if the trademark has not been used for five consecutive years after the opposition period or the conclusion of opposition proceedings, unless there are important reasons for non-use.
B-99/2023 (Art. 12 Abs. 1 MSchG)
ES6 v. S6: Likelihood of Confusion Limited to Vehicles, Not Bicycles
This article outlines the consequences of non-use of a trademark for an uninterrupted period of five years, a key element in the non-use objection.
102 2016 243 · fr (Art. 12 LPM)
Trademark Nullity for Non-Use Partially Granted; Likelihood of Confusion Found
Used in relation with Art. 52 LPM to determine the invalidity of the trademark due to non-use for classes 9 and 44.
B-4752/2022 (art. 12, al. 1 LPM)
Trademark Opposition Suspension Upheld Pending Cancellation Proceedings
Cited in relation to the defence of non-use of a mark in opposition proceedings and the grounds for revocation.
B-3250/2021 (Art. 12 Abs. 1 MSchG)
Trademark Opposition Dismissed: Insufficient Proof of Genuine Use
This provision was cited as a condition for the protection of an older trademark in opposition proceedings, requiring serious use in the last five years.
B-6287/2020 (Art. 12 Abs. 1 MSchG)
JUVEDERM Trademark Dispute: Class 5 Use Proven, Class 10 Invalid
Cited to explain that a trademark owner can no longer assert their trademark rights if the trademark has not been used for five consecutive years.
B-2382/2020 (Art. 12 Abs. 1 MSchG)
PIERRE DE COUBERTIN Trademark Cancellation for Non-Use in Switzerland
States that a trademark owner cannot enforce their trademark right if the mark has not been used for a continuous period of five years, unless there are important reasons for non-use.
B-4849/2020 (Art. 12 Abs. 1 MSchG)
SYRIPIC v. PIC SOLUTION: Likelihood of Confusion in Medical Syringe Trademarks
This provision states that if a trademark has not been used for five years, the right holder can no longer assert their trademark rights, barring important reasons.