13. Januar 2026 | Legal Insight
Bern Commercial Court clarifies
Swissness requirements allowing the use
of the designation "Swiss" as indication
of source for services
13. Januar 2026 | Legal Insight
Bern Commercial Court clarifies
Swissness requirements allowing the use
of the designation "Swiss" as indication
of source for services
In its judgement of 26 August 2025, the Bern Commercial Court ruled that BDSwiss AG, a global financial services provider with its registered office in Zug, must remove "Swiss" from its company name and the Swiss cross from its corporate logo. The action was brought by the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (IPI), which is authorised to file civil actions concerning the protection of the Swiss indication of source.
Under Art. 49 (1) of the Trade Mark Protection Act (TmPA), companies may only use the indications of source "Switzerland" or "Swiss" if they have their registered office and a place of effective administration in Switzerland. A place of effective administration is presumed to be the place where the activities which are essential for the fulfilment of the commercial purpose are carried out and the decisions which determine the provision of the service are made (Art. 52o of the Ordinance on the Protection of Trade Marks and Indications of Source).
BDSwiss AG has its registered office in Zug and provides financial services in Switzerland, among other places. As the operations of the company are managed from Cyprus and its main customer base is in Germany, the court found that the company did not meet the relevant legal criteria set out in the TmPA. It is for the defendant to demonstrate that a place of effective administration is located in Switzerland. However, the company failed to prove that significant operational activities were carried out in Switzerland, with the court noting that the office in Zug appeared to be little more than a mailbox. The judgment is final.
The IPI regularly intervenes in cases of Swissness misuse. Disputes are usually settled out of court. The present case marks the first time where the IPI brought a civil action concerning the Swissness criteria for advertising services. The ruling demonstrates that the courts are inclined to adopt a narrow interpretation of the requirements allowing the use of the Swiss indication of source for services.
Under Art. 49 (1) of the Trade Mark Protection Act (TmPA), companies may only use the indications of source "Switzerland" or "Swiss" if they have their registered office and a place of effective administration in Switzerland. A place of effective administration is presumed to be the place where the activities which are essential for the fulfilment of the commercial purpose are carried out and the decisions which determine the provision of the service are made (Art. 52o of the Ordinance on the Protection of Trade Marks and Indications of Source).
BDSwiss AG has its registered office in Zug and provides financial services in Switzerland, among other places. As the operations of the company are managed from Cyprus and its main customer base is in Germany, the court found that the company did not meet the relevant legal criteria set out in the TmPA. It is for the defendant to demonstrate that a place of effective administration is located in Switzerland. However, the company failed to prove that significant operational activities were carried out in Switzerland, with the court noting that the office in Zug appeared to be little more than a mailbox. The judgment is final.
The IPI regularly intervenes in cases of Swissness misuse. Disputes are usually settled out of court. The present case marks the first time where the IPI brought a civil action concerning the Swissness criteria for advertising services. The ruling demonstrates that the courts are inclined to adopt a narrow interpretation of the requirements allowing the use of the Swiss indication of source for services.
