IGE wins “Swissness” lawsuit: Indications of origin enforced in court for the first time

The background to the BDSwiss case

In its ruling of August 26, 2025, the Commercial Court of Bern handed down a landmark judgment for trademark and origin law in Switzerland. The dispute between the IPI and BDSwiss AG, an internationally active online financial services provider based in Zug, concerned the unlawful use of the word “Swiss” in the company name and the Swiss cross in the company logo.

Although BDSwiss AG was formally registered in Zug, according to research by the IPI, it did not conduct any substantial operational activities in Switzerland. This was evident from the fact that the company’s registered office in Zug consisted merely of a c/o address at a trustee, while the actual management was carried out from Cyprus. Furthermore, the services were primarily offered to the German market. There were increasing complaints in Switzerland against BDSwiss AG for the unauthorized use of the “Swissness label,” which is why the IPI approached BDSwiss AG several times in Switzerland. Despite repeated requests from the IPI, BDSwiss AG did not remove either the Swiss cross or the designation of origin from its communications. Due to the persistent refusal, the IPI filed a lawsuit with the Commercial Court of Bern in December 2022. It demanded a court injunction against the misuse of Swissness and the removal of the corresponding elements from the company name and brand identity. The Commercial Court of Bern ruled in favor of the IPI.

A milestone for the so-called “Swissness law”

The case is particularly relevant because, for the first time since the Swissness legislation came into force in 2017, a court has not only allowed such proceedings but also ruled in favor of the IPI. The decision marks a paradigm shift in the application of rules of origin and sends a clear signal against the misuse of Swissness in advertising.

The Commercial Court of Bern upheld the IPI’s request in its entirety. It qualified the use of the designation “Swiss” and the Swiss cross as misleading and inadmissible under the given circumstances. Particularly noteworthy is the court’s comprehensive assessment of the evidence:

• The formal registered office alone is not sufficient to establish a connection to the country of origin.
• The decisive factor is the actual, verifiable business presence and management from Switzerland.
• The combination of relocating the registered office abroad and Swissness marketing is deliberately misleading and therefore contrary to fair competition.

BDSwiss AG was ordered to remove all Swissness elements from its business presentation within three months.

Legal framework: Protection of origin and the requirements under Art. 49 MSchG

Since the comprehensive revision of the rules on indications of origin in 2017, Swiss trademark legislation has regulated the conditions under which products and services with a Swiss connection may be advertised. The aim of the Swissness legislation was to protect the reputation of the Swiss brand against free riders and to regulate its use in a binding manner. The legislature thus responded to numerous cases of abuse in practice.

According to Art. 49 of the Federal Act on the Protection of Trademarks and Indications of Source (Trademark Protection Act or MSchG, SR 232.11), the following applies:

• For services, the Swiss connection may only be claimed if the company’s registered office is in Switzerland and the actual management is carried out from Switzerland.
• A letterbox company or a de facto meaningless legal address does not meet these requirements.
• The use of the Swiss cross in logos is also specially protected under the Federal Act on the Protection of the Swiss Coat of Arms and Other Public Signs (Coat of Arms Protection Act or WSchG) and is only permitted if the Swissness requirements are met.
• Violations of these standards constitute unfair business practices within the meaning of Art. 3 lit. b UWG (Federal Act Against Unfair Competition).

The “Swissness regime” requires companies to provide objective, verifiable proof of origin. In concrete terms, this means that for services, the company’s infrastructure, personnel, decision-making powers, and value creation must be located in Switzerland. This also means that the actual management and administration of the company must not be controlled or significantly influenced from abroad.

Review: Have there been previous Swissness proceedings?

In fact, several Swissness violations have already been investigated by the IPI in the past. However, these usually ended in out-of-court settlements or were dealt with by administrative measures (orders, warnings). Prominent cases include those in the food and watch industries, where international manufacturers had used the Swiss cross or designations such as “Swiss Made” without meeting the relevant origin requirements. The ruling against BDSwiss AG is therefore the first case to have been fully litigated and decided in court. It thus marks a new level of quality in the enforcement of Swissness.

Significance and signal effect

The ruling represents a significant step in terms of legal policy and economics:

• It is the first judicial enforcement of Swissness requirements against an internationally active company.
• The decision creates legal certainty for authorities and companies in the interpretation of the rules of origin.
• It increases the pressure on companies based in Switzerland but largely operating abroad to question their Swissness communication.
• The case also has international implications: it signals that origin labeling is a controlled, justiciable field and not a freely configurable marketing tool.

Requirements for IP due diligence with Swissness component

Particularly in the context of M&A processes or brand valuations, an in-depth examination of origin information is essential and should be taken seriously. High-quality IP due diligence should take the following points into account in particular:

• Legality of origin information: Do Swissness claims comply with legal requirements? Is there reliable evidence?
• Contractual provisions: Are there any license, distribution, or agency agreements in which Swissness is used?
• Brand portfolio analysis: Are brands correctly registered, and are protected symbols such as the Swiss cross used?
• Documentation and evidence requirements: Can operational processes, headquarters, personnel, and decision-making authority in Switzerland be proven?
• Risk analysis: Are there any impending proceedings, complaints from the IPI, or indications of possible violations?

This Swissness check should be an integral part of IP and brand strategy – especially for internationally active companies with links to Switzerland.

Practical implications and compliance obligations

For internationally oriented companies based in Switzerland, this means:

• The physical headquarters in Switzerland must be underpinned by effective decision-making authority and operational infrastructure in Switzerland.
• Marketing departments must work closely with legal and compliance teams to ensure legally compliant origin information.

The following applies to domestic SMEs and start-ups:

• The use of Swissness elements must be actively documented and regularly reviewed.
• Unauthorized use can result in reputational damage, legal sanctions, and cancellation proceedings.

Consultants and lawyers should note the following:

• The ruling highlights the importance of early legal review in brand development and management.
• Swissness claims should be integrated into IP due diligence processes, especially in M&A or international collaborations.

Outlook

With its ruling against BDSwiss AG, the Commercial Court of Bern has sent a clear signal: Swissness is not just a marketing label, but a legally strictly regulated seal of quality. Companies that use their designation of origin strategically must meet strict requirements. The ruling is likely to lead to further proceedings and strengthen the enforcement practices of the IPI in the long term.

An increase in further precedents is to be expected in the future – both in traditional industries such as food and watches and in new areas such as FinTech, platform economics, and software-as-a-service models. Especially where products are sold digitally, location-independently, or in a hybrid form, indications of origin are valuable but must be examined particularly critically. Swissness will increasingly establish itself as a strategic compliance factor.

The ruling is also likely to be observed at the European level: protection of origin also plays a role in EU competition law and in the context of green claims regulation (we have reported on this). Harmonization or mutual recognition of rules of origin could be on the agenda in the longer term.

Do you have questions about trademark law or would you like to have your indications of origin checked for compliance with this new case law? Our specialists will be happy to advise you.