232.11
MSCHGLPM
CH
CH
Art. 2 Bundesgesetz vom 28. August 1992 über den Schutz von Marken und Herkunftsangaben (MSchG) - Absolute Ausschlussgründe
MSchG; 1. Titel: Marken; 1. Kapitel: Allgemeine Bestimmungen
Art. 2 MSchG · Absolute Ausschlussgründe
Vom Markenschutz ausgeschlossen sind: a. Zeichen, die Gemeingut sind, es sei denn, dass sie sich als Marke für die Waren oder Dienstleistungen durchgesetzt haben, für die sie beansprucht werden; b. Formen, die das Wesen der Ware ausmachen, und Formen der Ware oder Verpackung, die technisch notwendig sind; c. irreführende Zeichen; d. Zeichen, die gegen die öffentliche Ordnung, die guten Sitten oder geltendes Recht verstossen.
Gerichtsentscheide zu dieser Bestimmung (470)
BVGE-2020-IV-5 (Art. 2 Bst. c MSchG)
Swiss Service Mark Upheld Due to Proven Swiss Operations
Cited as the basis for excluding misleading signs from trademark protection.
BVGE-2020-IV-7 (Art. 2 let. a LPM)
BVLGARI: Acquired Distinctiveness Trumps Geographic Meaning
Used to exclude signs belonging to the public domain, unless they have become established as trademarks.
BVGE-2020-IV-7 (Art. 2 let. c LPM)
BVLGARI: Acquired Distinctiveness Trumps Geographic Meaning
Used to exclude signs that are misleading regarding the geographical origin of products or services.
BVGE-2020-IV-7 (Art. 2 let. d LPM)
BVLGARI: Acquired Distinctiveness Trumps Geographic Meaning
Used to exclude signs contrary to public order, good morals, or applicable law.
BVGE-2018-IV-7 (Art. 2 Bst. d MSchG)
Fish Symbol as Trademark Not Contrary to Good Morals
This provision excludes marks that violate public order, good morals, or applicable law, and was used to assess the religious connotations of the mark.
VPB 7786-2006-2610 (art. 2, let. c et d LPM)
EURODATALAND Registration Refused on Absolute Grounds
Confirms absolute grounds for refusal of protection for specific products.
B-3352/2025 (Art. 2 Bst. a MSchG)
Deutsche Tourenwagen Meisterschaft Trademark Refusal Affirmed
The court used this provision to rule that the trademark is part of the public domain and therefore not protectable.
B-102/2025 (Art. 2 Bst. a MSchG)
Green Leaf Motif Trademark Lacks Distinctiveness for Vegan Confectionery
This provision establishes that signs that are in the public domain are excluded from trademark protection unless they have acquired distinctiveness in use. The court used this to determine that the mark was not protectable because it was considered part of the public domain.
B-447/2025 (Art. 2 Bst. a MSchG)
Stylized "S" Shoe Designs Deemed Not Distinctive Trademarks
This provision establishes that signs belonging to the public domain are excluded from trademark protection, forming the basis for the rejection of the trademark applications.
B-2508/2023 (Art. 2 Bst. a MSchG)
Granini Bottle Mark Registration Affirmed
This provision is cited as the legal basis for the refusal of protection by the lower instance and is used in the reasoning to assess the distinctiveness of the mark.
B-1119/2025 (Art. 2 Bst. a MSchG)
Descriptive Trademarks PINKGLOW, RUBYGLOW, and HONEYGLOW Not Registrable
Ground for refusing trademark protection for signs that are common property and have not acquired distinctiveness through use.
B-7875/2024 (Art. 2 Bst. a MSchG)
Skinmed Trademark Partially Upheld
Cited as the legal basis for excluding signs that are part of the public domain, but allowing registration if the sign has become distinctive through use in commerce.
BVGE-2025-IV-9 (Art. 2 Bst. a MSchG)
Trademark Acquired Distinctiveness Permissible on Appeal
This provision is cited as the legal basis for determining whether a sign can be protected as a trademark if it has gained distinctiveness through use in commerce, and it is central to the court's decision to return the case for further examination on this point.
B-5480/2024 (Art. 2 Bst. a MSchG)
Mytico Trademark Refused Due to Descriptive Use of "Mitico"
Cited as the legal basis for refusing trademark registration because the sign lacks distinctiveness and belongs to the public domain.
B-2457/2024 (Art. 2 Bst. d MSchG)
"I COLORI DEL SAPORE" Flag Similarity Case
This provision is cited as the primary legal basis for excluding the trademark due to a violation of existing law, specifically concerning the protection of national emblems.