232.11
MSCHGLPM
CH
CH
Art. 3 Legge federale del 28 agosto 1992 sulla protezione dei marchi e delle indicazioni di provenienza (LPM) - Motivi relativi d’esclusione
LPM; Titolo primo: Marchi; Capitolo 1: Disposizioni generali
Art. 3 LPM · Motivi relativi d’esclusione
Sono inoltre esclusi dalla protezione come marchio: a. i segni identici a un marchio anteriore e destinati a prodotti o servizi identici; b. i segni identici a un marchio anteriore e destinati a prodotti o servizi simili, se ne risulta un rischio di confusione; c. i segni simili a un marchio anteriore e destinati a prodotti o servizi identici o simili, se ne risulta un rischio di confusione.
Sono considerati marchi anteriori: a. i marchi depositati o registrati che godono di una priorità secondo la presente legge (art. 6 a 8); b. i marchi che, al momento del deposito del segno considerato dal capoverso 1, sono notoriamente conosciuti in Svizzera ai sensi dell’articolo 6 bis della Convenzione di Parigi del 20 marzo 1883 per la protezione della proprietà industriale (Convenzione di Parigi).
Soltanto il titolare del marchio anteriore può invocare i motivi di esclusione giusta il presente articolo.
Decisioni giudiziarie che applicano questa disposizione (432)
BVGE-2020-IV-1 (Art. 3 Abs. 2 Bst. b MSchG)
Foreign Mark's Well-Known Status: Swiss Consumer Base for Specialty Pastries
This provision is cited as the legal basis for the relative grounds for exclusion in trademark law, which are relevant to the opposition procedure.
BVGE-2010-32 (Art. 3 Abs. 1 Bst. c MSchG)
Pernaton v. Pernadol
Used as the legal basis for the exclusion of trademarks based on relative grounds, specifically concerning the risk of confusion due to similar signs and goods.
BGE 128 III 96 (Art. 3 MSchG)
Trademark infringement and invalidity action: goods similarity between watches and fashion accessories (spectacles, leather goods) under Art. 3 MSchG; mere categorization as fashion accessories does not establish ware-equivalence.
Main ground for dismissing the appeal, as the court held that the disputed goods (spectacles, leather goods) were not similar to watches merely because they could all be considered fashion accessories, and the plaintiff's mark lacked an extended scope of protection.
B-4559/2023 (art. 3 al. 1 let. c LPM)
Trademark Opposition: Applicant's Appeal Moot, Owner's Appeal Denied Due to Dissimilar Services
Cited as the legal provision defining the grounds for exclusion from trademark protection based on conflicting signs and services.
B-6574/2025 (Art. 3 Abs. 1 Bst. c MSchG)
Swiss CannaMed AG v. CannaMed Schweiz GmbH (Trademark Opposition)
The owner of an older trademark can file an opposition against the registration of a younger trademark if it is similar to their trademark and registered for identical or similar goods and services, thus creating a likelihood of confusion.
B-2367/2024 (Art. 3 al. 1 let. c LPM)
Miplan Trademark Opposition Dismissed Due to Weak Distinctiveness and Sufficient Differentiation
This article is the legal basis for excluding signs similar to prior marks for identical or similar goods or services when there is a risk of confusion, which was central to the court's decision on the merits.
B-9248/2025 (Art. 3 Abs. 1 Bst. c i.V.m. Art. 31 Abs. 1 MSchG)
Trademark Opposition: Power of Attorney Validity and Right to be Heard Upheld
This provision establishes the conditions under which the owner of an older trademark can oppose a younger trademark, forming the substantive basis for trademark opposition proceedings.
B-3808/2025 (Art. 3 Abs. 1 Bst. c MSchG)
VEDA v. Verla: Trademark Likelihood of Confusion Partially Affirmed
This provision establishes the grounds for opposition based on the risk of confusion between trademarks.
B-2055/2025 (Art. 3 Abs. 1 Bst. a MSchG)
Redstone Trademark Dispute
Cited as a condition for trademark opposition where the marks are identical and for the same goods or services.
B-2055/2025 (Art. 3 Abs. 1 Bst. b MSchG)
Redstone Trademark Dispute
Cited as a condition for trademark opposition where the marks are identical and for similar goods or services, leading to a likelihood of confusion.
B-2055/2025 (Art. 3 Abs. 1 Bst. c MSchG)
Redstone Trademark Dispute
Cited as a condition for trademark opposition where the marks are similar and registered for identical or similar goods or services, leading to a likelihood of confusion.
B-5941/2024 (Art. 3 Abs. 1 Bst. c MSchG)
ApeSwap v. Ape Coin: Likelihood of Confusion in Financial Services
This provision, regarding the likelihood of confusion, is fundamental to the court's determination of the conflict between the two marks.
B-5941/2024 (Art. 3 Abs. 1 Bst. c des Markenschutzgesetzes vom 28. August 1992 [MSchG, SR 232.11])
ApeSwap v. Ape Coin: Likelihood of Confusion in Financial Services
This provision, concerning the likelihood of confusion, is central to the court's assessment of whether the later mark infringes upon the rights of the earlier mark holder.
B-5941/2024 (Art. 31 Abs. 1 i.V.m. Art. 3 Abs. 1 Bst. c des Markenschutzgesetzes vom 28. August 1992 [MSchG, SR 232.11])
ApeSwap v. Ape Coin: Likelihood of Confusion in Financial Services
This provision establishes the grounds for opposition, requiring similarity between marks and identity or similarity of goods/services leading to a likelihood of confusion, which forms the basis for the court's decision on the opposition.
B-1206/2025 (Art. 3 Abs. 1 Bst. c in Verbindung mit Art. 31 Abs. 1 des Markenschutzgesetzes vom 28. August 1992 (MSchG, SR 232.11))
RIDE now v. RIDE + GO: No Likelihood of Confusion Found
This provision establishes the conditions under which an older trademark owner can oppose a younger trademark registration, specifically regarding similarity and likelihood of confusion.