Art. 6 Bundesgesetz vom 28. August 1992 über den Schutz von Marken und Herkunftsangaben (MSchG) - Hinterlegungspriorität

B-4559/2023 (art. 6 LPM)

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

Cited as the legal provision for determining when a later sign infringes the distinctive function of an earlier mark, leading to a risk of confusion.

B-2367/2024 (Art. 6 LPM)

Miplan Trademark Opposition Dismissed Due to Weak Distinctiveness and Sufficient Differentiation

This article defines when a sign infringes on the distinctive function of a prior mark, which is a core component of the risk of confusion analysis.

B-5941/2024 (Art. 6 MSchG)

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

This provision dictates that the filing date is decisive for determining the older mark in Switzerland, which is a foundational element for the opposition proceedings.

B-4641/2023 (Art. 6 LPM)

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

Cited for the principle that a newer sign infringes the distinctive function of an earlier mark when there is a risk of confusion.

B-5493/2023 (Art. 6 LPM)

AFP vs. OFP Trademark Opposition Rejected

This article defines what constitutes a trademark and the prohibition of signs that infringe upon the distinctive function of an earlier trademark. The court cited this to frame the analysis of the risk of confusion.

B-2958/2023 (Art. 6 LPM)

OW NAVICHRON trademark confusion case

This provision defines when a newer sign infringes the distinctive function of an earlier mark, which is the basis for assessing the risk of confusion.

B-5338/2023 (art. 6 LPM)

LA FABRIK BOUTIQUE EXPÉRIENCE Trademark Opposition Rejected

This provision addresses the infringement of the distinctive function of an earlier trademark by a more recent sign.

B-358/2022 (Art. 6 LPM)

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

This provision defines that a trademark is a sign that distinguishes the products or services of one company from those of other companies, and that a risk of confusion arises when a more recent sign infringes the distinctive function of an earlier trademark.

B-2236/2022 (Art. 6 LPM)

Klarpay v. Klarna: Likelihood of Confusion Found

This provision defines when an earlier trademark's distinctive function is impaired, which is relevant for determining the risk of confusion.

B-2338/2022 (Art. 6 LPM)

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

This article relates to the risk of confusion and the impairment of the distinctive function of a prior mark by a newer sign. The court used it to evaluate whether the two marks at issue created a likelihood of confusion for consumers.

B-5591/2021 (art. 6 LPM)

No Likelihood of Confusion for "Chianti" Trademark Despite Shared Term and Color

Establishes that there is an infringement of the distinctive function of an earlier mark when a more recent sign causes a risk of confusion.

B-1105/2021 (Art. 6 LPM)

KRIS vs. KISS Trademark Registration Appeal Rejected

Main ground for the decision, used to assess the likelihood of confusion between the marks.

B-1808/2021 (Art. 6 LPM)

StrukturELLE vs. ELLE: Likelihood of Confusion for Paper Goods and Entertainment Services

Cited in the context of determining when a newer sign infringes the distinctive function of an earlier mark, leading to a risk of confusion.

B-1398/2020 (Art. 6 LPM)

Planète + (fig.) vs. Perpetual Planet: Likelihood of Confusion Analysis

Cited to define when a trademark infringes the distinctive function of an earlier trademark, leading to a risk of confusion.

C/6464/2018 · ge (art. 6 LPM)

Textile Company v. Chinese Company: Trademark Nullification Due to Likelihood of Confusion

Cited in the reasoning concerning the acquisition of trademark rights by the first depositor.