Art. 32 Legge federale del 28 agosto 1992 sulla protezione dei marchi e delle indicazioni di provenienza (LPM) - Plausibilità dell’uso

B-5828/2023 (Art. 32 MSchG)

CANNAVITAS Trademark Dispute: Genuine Use Insufficient for Opposition

Cited as the provision that the applicant does not have to prove, but rather credibly demonstrate, the use of their mark.

B-371/2023 (Art. 32 MSchG)

Automotive Trademark Dispute: ES8 vs. S8, Likelihood of Confusion Found for Motor Vehicles, Not Bicycles

This provision outlines the burden of proof for making use of a trademark plausible.

B-4752/2022 (art. 32 LPM)

Trademark Opposition Suspension Upheld Pending Cancellation Proceedings

Cited regarding the burden of proof for the use of a mark in opposition proceedings when non-use is invoked.

B-3250/2021 (Art. 32 MSchG)

Trademark Opposition Dismissed: Insufficient Proof of Genuine Use

This provision, in conjunction with Art. 22 Abs. 3 MSchV, was cited to establish the requirement for the opponent to prove the use of the trademark when non-use is alleged by the opponent.

B-6287/2020 (Art. 32 MSchG)

JUVEDERM Trademark Dispute: Class 5 Use Proven, Class 10 Invalid

Cited by the opponent as the basis for their plea of non-use.

B-4849/2020 (Art. 32 MSchG)

SYRIPIC v. PIC SOLUTION: Likelihood of Confusion in Medical Syringe Trademarks

This provision outlines the burden of proof for trademark use when the opponent claims non-use.

B-3261/2020 (Art. 32 MSchG)

Trademark Opposition Dismissed for Lack of Proven Use in Retail Services

This provision requires the opponent to substantiate the use of their trademark or important reasons for non-use when the opponent claims non-use, which is the core of the legal burden in this case.

B-6253/2016 (Art. 32 LPM)

Swiss-German Treaty: EUTM and "Double Registration" for Opposition Purposes

Requires the opponent to make use of their trademark plausible when non-use is invoked.

BVGE-2021-IV-2 (Art. 32 LPM)

Trademark Use Across Borders Under Swiss-German Convention

Cited in relation to the burden of proof for the use of a trademark when a counterclaim for non-use is raised.

B-6813/2019 (Art. 32 LPM)

Genuine Use Trademark Opposition Rejected

This article was cited as the basis for the opposing party's obligation to make the use of their trademark plausible.

B-2256/2019 (Art. 32 LPM)

CARL TC Trademark Opposition Dismissed

Cited for the obligation of the opponent to make the use of their mark plausible when the non-use is invoked.

B-6557/2017 (Art. 32 MSchG)

Trademark Use Dispute: Insufficient Evidence for Classes 14, 16, and 25

Cited in conjunction with Art. 22 Abs. 3 MSchV to establish the obligation to prove the use of the mark during opposition proceedings.

B-3209/2017 (Art. 32 MSchG)

Paradis Wine Registrations Not Confusingly Similar to Paradis Brandy Mark

Requires the opposing party to substantiate the use of the opposing mark or important reasons for non-use when the objection of non-use is raised.

B-4640/2018 (Art. 32 MSchG i.V.m. Art. 22 Abs. 3 der Markenschutzverordnung vom 23. Dezember 1992 (MSchV, SR 232.111))

Trademark Opposition Remanded for Comprehensive Use Assessment

Obligation for the opponent to prove the use of the trademark in opposition proceedings when non-use is claimed by the opponent.

B-4641/2018 (Art. 32 MSchG i.V.m. Art. 22 Abs. 3 der Markenschutzverordnung vom 23. Dezember 1992 (MSchV, SR 232.111))

Trademark Opposition: Genuine Use and Confusing Similarity Re-examination Ordered

Mandates that the opponent must substantiate the use of the opponent's trademark when the opponent of the younger trademark claims non-use.