232.11
MSCHGLPM
CH
CH
Art. 32 Bundesgesetz vom 28. August 1992 über den Schutz von Marken und Herkunftsangaben (MSchG) - Glaubhaftmachung des Gebrauchs
MSchG; 1. Titel: Marken; 3. Kapitel: Eintragung der Marken
Art. 32 MSchG · Glaubhaftmachung des Gebrauchs
Behauptet der Widerspruchsgegner den Nichtgebrauch der älteren Marke nach Artikel 12 Absatz 1, so hat der Widersprechende den Gebrauch seiner Marke oder wichtige Gründe für den Nichtgebrauch glaubhaft zu machen.
Gerichtsentscheide zu dieser Bestimmung (56)
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.