232.111
MSCHVOPM
CH
CH
Art. 22 Verordnung vom 23. Dezember 1992 über den Schutz von Marken und Herkunftsangaben (MSchV) - Schriftenwechsel
MSchV; 2. Kapitel: Eintragung der Marken
Art. 22 MSchV · Schriftenwechsel
Das IGE bringt einen nicht offensichtlich unzulässigen Widerspruch dem Widerspruchsgegner zur Kenntnis und setzt ihm eine Frist zur Stellungnahme an.
Die Stellungnahme des Widerspruchsgegners ist in zwei Exemplaren einzureichen.
Der Widerspruchsgegner muss einen allfälligen Nichtgebrauch der Marke des Widersprechenden nach Artikel 12 Absatz 1 MSchG in seiner ersten Stellungnahme geltend machen; dies ist jedoch nur zulässig, wenn zu diesem Zeitpunkt eine ununterbrochene Frist von fünf Jahren nach unbenütztem Ablauf der Widerspruchsfrist oder nach Abschluss des Widerspruchsverfahrens abgelaufen ist.
Das IGE kann weitere Schriftenwechsel durchführen.
Gerichtsentscheide zu dieser Bestimmung (20)
B-5828/2023 (Art. 22 Abs. 3 MSchV)
CANNAVITAS Trademark Dispute: Genuine Use Insufficient for Opposition
Cited as the provision that the plea of non-use must be raised with the first submission to the lower instance, otherwise it is forfeited.
B-3261/2020 (Art. 22 Abs. 3 MSchV)
Trademark Opposition Dismissed for Lack of Proven Use in Retail Services
This provision specifies when the plea of non-use must be raised, influencing the procedural context of the case but not the final substantive orders.
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.
B-7210/2017 (Art. 22 Abs. 3 MSchV)
Trademark Opposition Case Remanded for Re-evaluation of Limited Scope
Cited in relation to the obligation to provide reasons for non-use of a trademark.
B-681/2016 (Art. 22 Abs. 3 MSchV)
StressBook vs. Facebook: Likelihood of Confusion Limited to Digital Services
Procedural rule concerning the assertion of non-use of a trademark.
B-7202/2014 (Art. 22 Abs. 3 MSchV)
Geo Influence v. GEO: Likelihood of Confusion Upheld
Procedural requirement for raising the non-use objection in the first submission to the lower instance.
B-5902/2013 (Art. 22 Abs. 3 MSchV)
Trademark Dispute: Use of Mark for Transportation Services Partially Proven
Specifies that the plea of non-use must be formally raised in the first statement of the opponent to the first instance.
B-6251/2013 (Art. 22 Abs. 3 MSchV)
Trademark Opposition Dismissed Due to Insufficient Proof of Genuine Use
Mandates that the plea of non-use must be formally raised in the first submission by the trademark opponent.
B-3547/2013 (Art. 22 Abs. 3 MSchV)
Japanese trademark opposition dismissed due to insufficient evidence of Swiss use
States that the plea of non-use must be raised with the first submission to the prior instance, otherwise it is forfeited.
B-3050/2011 (Art. 22 Abs. 3 MSchV)
ROOM SEVEN vs. SEVEN Trademark Confusion
The opponent must raise the objection of non-use clearly and unequivocally in their first statement.
B-892/2009 (Art. 22 Abs. 3 MSchV)
Heidiland v. Heidi-Alpen: Genuine Use of Trademark for Cheese Not Proven
Cited regarding the obligation for the opponent to assert non-use of the trademark in their first statement within the opposition procedure.
B-5830/2009 (Art. 32 MSchG i.V.m. Art. 22 Abs. 3 MSchV)
Five-Stripe Trademark Dispute: Likelihood of Confusion Found for Two of Three Opposed Marks
Rule for proving genuine use of a mark or important reasons for non-use when non-use is invoked.
B-7191/2009 (Art. 32 MSchG i.V.m. Art. 22 Abs. 3 der Markenschutzverordnung vom 23. Dezember 1992 (MSchV, SR 232.111))
Trademark Cancellation Challenge Dismissed Due to Lack of Genuine Use
Cited to establish the burden of proof for the user of a mark when non-use is claimed by the opponent in their first statement.
B-142/2009 (Art. 22 Abs. 3 MSchV)
DOLCINO v. PULCINO: Likelihood of Confusion in Trademark Dispute
This provision was cited to determine that the defense of non-use of the mark was raised too late in the appeal proceedings.