[Guest Post] Ceci n’est pas du Gruyère: Swiss origin claims and how to deal with them

[Marcel Pemsel]

[Guest Post] Ceci n’est pas du Gruyère: Swiss origin claims and how to deal with them

Marcel Pemsel Friday, February 27, 2026 - appellations of origin, Federica Pezza, geographic indications, Swissness, trade marks

The IPKat has received and is pleased to host this guest contribution from Katfriend Federica Pezza, who explores the legal framework governing Swiss origin claims in Switzerland and the EU.

Ceci n’est pas du Gruyère: Swiss origin claims and how to deal with them

by Federica Pezza

Switzerland means luxury watches, chocolate and cows, fondue and raclette, Heidi and green mountains. Above all, it means high quality standards: studies by ETH Zurich and the University of St. Gallen show that the “Swissness” premium can account for up to 20% of a product’s price. In special sectors like watches and luxury goods the premium may reach up to 50%.

Legally speaking, Switzerland means restrictions (big ones) on the use of the Swiss appellation and corresponding label. The reason behind this is a simple one: the greater the trust consumers have in the guaranteed quality of a product/service, the greater the risk of wrongful use by free riders.

This logic was confirmed, inter alia, by a ruling made public by the Berne Commercial Court on 8 January this year, in a case brought by the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (IPI) against BDSwiss, a financial services provider managed from Cyprus, with registered office in Zug.

But let’s take a step back and see where everything started.

Swissness legislation: indications of origin

The Swissness legislation was adopted by Swiss Parliament in 2013 and came into effect on the 1 January 2017. It defines the criteria for indicating Swiss origin for commercial products and services marketed in Switzerland, and it covers claims such as “Swiss Made”, “Swiss quality” etc. as well as other indications and illustrations referring to Switzerland, including the Swiss flag.

Notably, food products shall comply with the following criteria: (i) the essential processing step must occur in Switzerland; and (ii) at least 80% of the weight of raw materials must come from Switzerland. However, some ingredients may be exempted if it can be demonstrated that Swiss sourcing was not possible. Different criteria apply for natural and industrial products.

When it comes to services, companies can advertise them as Swiss if they (i) have a registered office in Switzerland and (ii) are actually managed from Switzerland. Accordingly, a letterbox alone is not a sufficient connection to the country. 

 

The ruling of the Berne Commercial Court

In the case at hand, a number of complaints were raised against the BDSwiss company, which led to the IPI contacting BDSwiss several times and eventually bringing an action before the Court.

According to the Berne Commercial Court, the fact that BDSwiss has an office in Zug is not sufficient to comply with the ‘Swissness’ criteria because the company was managed from Cyprus. On these grounds, the Court decided that the company must remove ‘Swiss’ from its name and the Swiss cross from its logo and that it has three months to change its branding.

Geographical Indications (GIs), Appellations of Origin (AOs) and geographical marks

And there is more to come.

In addition to simple indications of origin, there are qualified designations, such as «Tête de Moine» or « Gruyère», which are registered in the Swiss “Register of designations of origin and geographical indications”.

The Federal Act on the Protection of Trade Marks and Indications of Source (TPA) marks a distinction between GIs and AOs, which identify products whose quality or characteristics are due exclusively or essentially to the geographical environment.

Additionally, GIs, AOs, certain indications of source and canton-recognised wine indications may be registered as geographical marks by a representative group. No proof of use is required and infringing third-party use of the mark for identical or similar products may be prohibited. However, such marks cannot be licensed, transferred or relied upon in oppositions.

On 19 March 2021, the Swiss Parliament approved the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement on Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications and the amendment of the TPA, with the aim of enabling beneficiaries of AOs and GIs to obtain a high level of protection on the territory of the contracting parties for an unlimited period of time.

Yet, this may still not be sufficient. In Switzerland, Gruyère cheese falls under the protected label Gruyère AOP. However, in 2023, the US Court of Appeal for the fourth Circuit upheld the USPTO’s refusal to grant the Swiss and French Gruyère associations exclusive rights over “gruyère” in the US. Notably, the Court held that this term is a generic one in the US market, and all cheese producers, regardless of the country they come from, may use it.

Treatment of Swiss designations outside of Switzerland

And what is the situation in the European Union (EU) when it comes to Swiss claims?

In principle, Swiss claims on products sold abroad are not governed by Swissness law. They must comply with the regulations of the country where they are used. When it comes to the EU, this generally means that such indications must not be misleading (Article 7 (1)(g) of the European Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR)).

With its ruling of 2 April 2025 in case T-442/23, the General Court (GC) upheld the Board of Appeal’s decision rejecting an invalidity action against the figurative EUTM containing the word “Swisse” (filed on 2 July 2003). The action was based on provisions corresponding to what are now Article 7(1)(g) EUTMR (deceptive trademarks) and on Article 59(1)(b) EUTMR (bad faith).

The GC noted that (i) the mark could lawfully be used for goods manufactured in Switzerland, (ii) the list of goods did not contain any indication of their geographical origin, (iii) the applicant failed to show actual deception or a sufficiently serious risk and (iv) bad faith cannot be presumed on the basis that at the time of filing the applicant had no economic activity corresponding to the goods and services applied for. On this basis, it concluded that the mark was valid as neither it was deceptive nor filed in bad faith.

Notably, the Court stressed that the refusal by Swiss authorities to register the mark was irrelevant due to the autonomy of the EU trade mark system. However, it did refer to the Swissness legislation, highlighting that it was only adopted in 2013, well after the relevant filing date. Against this background, it would be interesting to consider whether the outcome might have been different had the legal framework been in place at an earlier point in time.

A complex legal picture, yet worth a smile

In short, the overall picture when it comes to the protection of Swiss origin claims is a complex one, characterised by the interaction of different rights. Only a deep understanding of the applicable laws and related practice can mitigate the risk when running a business and referring to the notion of Switzerland…and talking about pictures: “say cheese!”, but first make sure to verify where it comes from if you claim it to be Swiss cheese.