Art. 73 Bundesgesetz vom 17. Juni 2005 über das Bundesgericht (BGG) - Ausnahme

B-4559/2023 (art. 73 LTF)

Trademark Opposition: Applicant's Appeal Moot, Owner's Appeal Denied Due to Dissimilar Services

Cited to establish that the present decision is final and not subject to further appeal to the Federal Supreme Court.

B-2367/2024 (Art. 73 LTF)

Miplan Trademark Opposition Dismissed Due to Weak Distinctiveness and Sufficient Differentiation

This article states that appeals in civil matters to the Federal Supreme Court are not admissible against decisions on opposition proceedings for trademark registration, making the present decision final.

B-2055/2025 (Art. 73 BGG)

Redstone Trademark Dispute

Cited to state that no appeal to the Federal Court is possible against this judgment.

B-5941/2024 (Art. 73 BGG)

ApeSwap v. Ape Coin: Likelihood of Confusion in Financial Services

This provision of the Federal Administrative Procedure Act states that no appeal to the Federal Supreme Court is possible, making the current decision final.

B-1828/2025 (Art. 73 BGG)

Neutrogena Corp. v. NutriGene, Inc.

This provision states that no appeal to the Federal Court is possible against this judgment, making it final.

B-5828/2023 (Art. 73 BGG)

CANNAVITAS Trademark Dispute: Genuine Use Insufficient for Opposition

Cited as the provision stating that no appeal to the Federal Supreme Court is possible against this judgment.

B-4641/2023 (Art. 73 LTF)

*Pernod Ricard v. S.P.A. Rinaldi*

Cited to establish that the decision is final as appeals to the Federal Supreme Court in trademark opposition matters are not admissible.

B-2958/2023 (Art. 73 LTF)

OW NAVICHRON trademark confusion case

This provision specifies when decisions are final, indicating that the present ruling is final as appeals to the Federal Supreme Court in trademark opposition matters are not admissible.

B-5338/2023 (art. 73 LTF)

LA FABRIK BOUTIQUE EXPÉRIENCE Trademark Opposition Rejected

This provision states that appeals to the Federal Supreme Court in civil matters are not admissible against decisions on trademark opposition proceedings, making the present ruling final.

B-358/2022 (Art. 73 LTF)

Cherie v. Cherry.TV: Likelihood of Confusion Not Found Due to Semantic Differences

This article states that appeals in civil matters to the Federal Supreme Court are not admissible against decisions in trademark opposition proceedings.

B-2236/2022 (Art. 73 LTF)

Klarpay v. Klarna: Likelihood of Confusion Found

This provision determines the finality of the administrative court's decision, stating that appeals to the Federal Supreme Court are inadmissible in opposition proceedings concerning trademark registration.

B-2338/2022 (Art. 73 LTF)

ZARA v. zämä: No Likelihood of Confusion Due to Lack of Phonetic and Conceptual Similarity

This provision states that appeals in civil matters to the Federal Supreme Court are inadmissible against decisions regarding trademark oppositions, making the present Federal Administrative Court decision final.

UV.2023.00120 · zh (Art. 73 BGG)

Claimant v. Insurer: Denial of Accident Benefits Upheld Due to Pre-existing Degeneration

Not cited in the dispositive.

B-1080/2024 (Art. 73 BGG)

"Like" vs. Thumbs Up Goat: No Likelihood of Confusion Found

This provision indicates that no further appeal to the Federal Supreme Court is possible.

BV.2023.11 · sg (Art. 73 Abs. 1 LTF)

Occupational Pension Fund Disability Claim Dismissed Due to Pre-existing Incapacity

The text references the appeal court's jurisdiction based on Art. 73 Abs. 1 BVG, which relates to the court structure and competence, though Art. 73 Abs. 2 BVG is cited regarding costs.