The IPI has clarified its approach to Swissness legislation and states that, under strict conditions, the Swiss cross may now also be used on products manufactured abroad. Specifically, the IPI states that the Swiss cross may be used in conjunction with terms such as ‘SWISS RESEARCH’ or ‘SWISS ENGINEERING’, even if the product as a whole does not meet the Swissness criteria.
In a notice dated 23 March 2026, the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (IPI) published its clarification of practice regarding Swissness legislation. The notice clearly states that this is merely a clarification of existing practice and that the Swissness rules, which came into force in 2017, continue to apply unchanged. In this case, the IPI clarifies the official interpretation of the conditions under which the Swiss cross may be used in conjunction with other indications to refer to the origin of the technology or research. According to the IPI’s notice, this is permissible under strict conditions, provided that the marking is not understood as an indication of origin for the entire product.
The On case
The public debate was triggered by the long-running dispute over the On footwear brand. The Zurich-based running shoe manufacturer has long been in dispute with the Swiss authorities over the use of the Swiss cross on its running shoes. The background to the dispute is that the research and development of the footwear technology and On’s brand identity are based in Switzerland, whilst the shoes are manufactured abroad. Given the research and development work carried out in Switzerland, On wished to use the Swiss cross to indicate the origin of the technology.
However, the IGE attempted to dissuade the company from using the Swiss cross, as production did not take place in Switzerland. On countered that the cross was only used in conjunction with the ‘Swiss Engineering’ lettering, as the company’s entire research and development department was based in Zurich. As a compromise, the shoe manufacturer has so far refrained from using the cross in Switzerland due to the dispute, but continues to use it abroad.
In 2025, pressure on On mounted once again as the Chinese authorities became involved and the company was threatened with legal consequences. Chinese trademark law stipulates that a country’s flag may only be used with the consent of the relevant government. This has given the debate new impetus.
Background: Swissness as protection of origin and trust
The current Swissness regulation came into force on 1 January 2017. It is intended to protect the economic value of the ‘Switzerland’ designation of origin and the Swiss cross, and to prevent misuse of designations of origin. This is of considerable practical importance because ‘Swiss made’ creates significant added value in the market and is therefore particularly vulnerable to misuse.
Legally, the use of the ‘Switzerland’ origin indication is linked to statutory origin criteria. These distinguish between natural products, foodstuffs, industrial products and services. In the case of industrial products, in particular, at least 60 per cent of the manufacturing costs must be incurred in Switzerland. Furthermore, the manufacturing stage that gives the product its essential characteristics must take place in Switzerland. For services, the Swissness regulation requires that the company’s registered office be located in Switzerland and that the company is actually managed from here.
However, those who do not meet these requirements are not necessarily excluded from any reference to Switzerland. References to individual services provided in Switzerland, such as research, development or design, may be permissible provided that these activities were actually and entirely carried out here. The IGE is also increasingly focusing on enforcing the Swissness regulations; this year, for instance, the IGE achieved its first procedural success before the Commercial Court of Bern. The court upheld the IPI’s view that, based on the facts of the case, the use of the designation ‘Swiss’ and the Swiss cross should be classified as misleading and inadmissible (see ‘IPI wins ‘Swissness’ case: indications of origin enforced in court for the first time’).
The IPI’s clarification of practice: content, legal classification and limits
The core of the announcement of 23 March 2026 is the statement that companies may use the Swiss cross together with terms such as “SWISS RESEARCH” or ‘SWISS ENGINEERING’, even if the product in question does not meet the Swissness criteria as a whole, provided that the Swiss cross is placed exactly between the two words and the side length of the square is no greater than the uniform font size. The Institute is thus not creating a new category of origin, but rather clarifying the circumstances under which a limited reference to Swiss research or development achievements is permissible.
The IPI places the decision in the context of an increasingly demanding international market environment, which necessitates interpreting the laws as favourably as possible for companies. It explains that, due to the strong Swiss franc and high US tariffs, many Swiss companies are finding themselves forced to relocate parts of their production abroad. Research, development and design, however, often remain in Switzerland. To ensure this remains the case, there is a legitimate interest in being able to communicate this Swiss contribution to value creation in the form of research and development to third parties by means of a Swiss cross.
However, it has not yet been conclusively clarified what exactly is meant by ‘SWISS RESEARCH’ or ‘SWISS ENGINEERING’. According to the IPI, the definition of these terms is still pending.
In summary, the communication does not alter the existing regulations on indications of origin or the Swissness legislation. Nor does it create a general exemption for global supply chains with research and development sites in Switzerland. Rather, the IPI states that this clarification is already possible under existing law and that administrative practice is now being clarified by the communication. For companies, this leads to greater legal certainty regarding the use of indications of origin.
Of particular interest to companies are the formal requirements formulated by the IPI regarding the positioning of the Swiss cross. The Swiss cross must not be placed freely on the product, but must be positioned precisely between the two words clarifying the activity in Switzerland, for example between ‘SWISS’ and ‘ENGINEERING’. Furthermore, the side length of the square symbol must not exceed the size of the uniformly displayed text.
Equally important is what the clarification of practice does not mean. It does not imply that products failing to meet the Swissness criteria may now generally be marked with the Swiss cross. Nor does it permit the use of the Swiss cross as a standalone or eye-catching feature on a product, packaging or in advertising. This is worth emphasising because the IPI continues to maintain elsewhere that the Swiss cross may not, in principle, be used for goods from abroad. The new notice should therefore not be understood as a general relaxation, but rather as a narrow, context-specific clarification of interpretation.
There is a further caveat: the IPI expressly states that special provisions to the contrary, such as those in sector-specific regulations, remain reserved. In regulated or origin-sensitive sectors, it is therefore necessary to check additionally whether sector-specific standards impose stricter requirements on the use of Swiss origin marks. In this respect too, the clarification of practice facilitates an initial understanding of the legal requirements, but does not replace the examination of individual cases.
Practical implications for businesses
For businesses, the clarification of practice primarily means greater flexibility in communication. Those who relocate production components abroad for cost, customs or supply chain reasons may, in future, be able to highlight Swiss research, development or engineering services more prominently without automatically breaching the Swissness regulations. This can be of considerable significance, particularly for internationally active industrial companies, consumer goods manufacturers and technology-driven brands, as the link to the Swiss market can now also be established through innovation, quality, development and research.
However, the new clarification does not provide blanket legitimisation for marketing-driven references to Switzerland. Companies must continue to examine very carefully whether the specific wording meets the strict requirements formulated by the IPI and whether the impression of Swiss origin for the overall product can be ruled out. Furthermore, sector-specific special regulations remain in force. From a compliance perspective, it is therefore advisable not to assess claims such as ‘SWISS RESEARCH’ or ‘SWISS ENGINEERING’ in isolation from a marketing perspective, but to subject them to an overall assessment from a legal, graphic and contextual point of view. Whilst this clarification of practice increases legal certainty regarding the use of indications of origin, it does not relieve companies of their responsibility for the lawful and proper implementation of the labelling.
Conclusion
The IPI’s communication does not represent a relaxation of Swissness legislation, but rather a specific clarification of its application. It takes account of the fact that Swiss value creation today often no longer lies exclusively in production, but also in the research, development, design and technical conception of products. Provided that these services are actually performed in Switzerland and the labelling does not appear as an indication of origin for the entire product, reference may be made to these activities in Switzerland through the use of the Swiss cross under strict conditions.
In doing so, the IPI seeks to reconcile the protection of the ‘Swiss’ designation with the realities of global value chains. In practice, this is to be welcomed, as it somewhat reduces the previous grey area. At the same time, the fundamental principle remains unchanged: the Swiss cross is not a freely available quality seal for products that do not meet the statutory Swissness criteria. Anyone advertising with Swiss references must also actually perform work in the advertised areas within Switzerland.
Sources