232.11
MSCHGLPM
CH
CH
Art. 11 Bundesgesetz vom 28. August 1992 über den Schutz von Marken und Herkunftsangaben (MSchG) - Gebrauch der Marke
MSchG; 1. Titel: Marken; 1. Kapitel: Allgemeine Bestimmungen
Art. 11 MSchG · Gebrauch der Marke
Die Marke ist geschützt, soweit sie im Zusammenhang mit den Waren und Dienstleistungen gebraucht wird, für die sie beansprucht wird.
Als Gebrauch der Marke gelten auch der Gebrauch in einer von der Eintragung nicht wesentlich abweichenden Form und der Gebrauch für die Ausfuhr.
Der Gebrauch der Marke mit Zustimmung des Inhabers gilt als Gebrauch durch diesen selbst.
Gerichtsentscheide zu dieser Bestimmung (133)
B-3030/2022 (Art. 11 Abs. 1 MSchG)
MONDO Trademark Cancellation for Non-Use
Cited to define the requirement of genuine use of a trademark.
B-3030/2022 (Art. 11 Abs. 3 MSchG)
MONDO Trademark Cancellation for Non-Use
Cited regarding the attribution of trademark use by third parties.
B-5828/2023 (Art. 11 Abs. 1 MSchG)
CANNAVITAS Trademark Dispute: Genuine Use Insufficient for Opposition
Cited as the basis for trademark protection when used in connection with claimed goods and services.
B-5828/2023 (Art. 11 Abs. 2 MSchG)
CANNAVITAS Trademark Dispute: Genuine Use Insufficient for Opposition
Cited as the provision that use of a mark in a form not essentially different from the registered form is considered legitimate use.
B-5828/2023 (Art. 11 Abs. 3 MSchG)
CANNAVITAS Trademark Dispute: Genuine Use Insufficient for Opposition
Cited as the basis for allowing a trademark owner to claim use by third parties with their consent.
B-6389/2023 (Art. 11 al. 1 LPM)
Trademark Cancellation Denied Due to Insufficient Proof of Non-Use
Requires that trademark protection is granted as long as the mark is used in relation to the registered products or services.
C/21608/2022 · ge (Art. 11 al. 1 LPM)
Holding Company v. Foundation (Trademark Use in Class 41)
The Court referenced this provision when discussing the requirement that the protection of a mark is conditional upon its use in relation to the registered products or services.
C/21608/2022 · ge (Art. 11 al. 3 LPM)
Holding Company v. Foundation (Trademark Use in Class 41)
The Court used this provision to assimilate the use of the mark by the bank (a closely linked entity) to use by the mark holder itself.
1A 23 13 · lu (Art. 11 Abs. 1 MSchG)
SCHNITTSCHUTZ Trademark: Partial Invalidity for Non-Use, Distinctiveness Upheld
Cited as the basis for the rule that a mark is only protected insofar as it is used in connection with the goods and services for which it is claimed, relevant to the finding of non-use for certain classes.
B-3745/2022 (Art. 11 Abs. 3 MSchG)
Shelby Trademark Cancellation: Genuine Use Proven Through Licensing
Cited as the legal basis for considering the use of the trademark by a third party (fremdbenutzung) as valid for maintaining the trademark rights.
B-371/2023 (Art. 11 Abs. 1 MSchG)
Automotive Trademark Dispute: ES8 vs. S8, Likelihood of Confusion Found for Motor Vehicles, Not Bicycles
This provision defines when a trademark is protected based on its use in relation to the goods and services for which it is claimed.
B-371/2023 (Art. 11 Abs. 2 MSchG)
Automotive Trademark Dispute: ES8 vs. S8, Likelihood of Confusion Found for Motor Vehicles, Not Bicycles
This provision addresses the concept of use of a trademark in a form not essentially different from the registration.
B-371/2023 (Art. 11 Abs. 3 MSchG)
Automotive Trademark Dispute: ES8 vs. S8, Likelihood of Confusion Found for Motor Vehicles, Not Bicycles
This provision allows for the use of a trademark by third parties to be attributed to the trademark holder, provided it is with their consent.
B-99/2023 (Art. 11 Abs. 1 MSchG)
ES6 v. S6: Likelihood of Confusion Limited to Vehicles, Not Bicycles
This article is cited to establish the requirement for genuine use of a trademark in relation to the goods/services for which it is claimed.
B-99/2023 (Art. 11 Abs. 2 MSchG)
ES6 v. S6: Likelihood of Confusion Limited to Vehicles, Not Bicycles
This provision concerns the genuine use of a trademark in a form not essentially different from its registration, which was a point of contention in the case.