WORLD TRADE IP/N/6/CHE/1
16October 1997
ORGANIZATION(97-4471)
Original: French Council forTrade-Related Aspects
ofIntellectual Property Rights
CHECKLIST OFISSUES ONENFORCEMENT1
Replies from Switzerland
Preliminary remarks
TheSwiss system ischaracterized byfederalism. According toArticles 64and64aofthe
Swiss Federal Constitution (Cst), theConfederation hastheright tolegislate onmatters suchas
intellectual property, civillawandcriminal lawbuttheorganization ofthejudicial system, procedures
andtheadministration ofjustice arevested withthecantons. Under theSwiss Constitution there is
onlyoneSupreme Federal Court (Article 106Cst). Subject totheconditions laiddown byfederal
law,appeals maybemade totheFederal Court against decisions ofthehigher cantonal authority.
Enforcement ofintellectual property rights (IPRs) isgoverned bynumerous federal legislative
texts. Thelatter were notified in1996 (document IP/N/1/CHE/1); thisdocument willbeadded to
andupdated bytheendof1997. Thedetails concerning these texts(dates when theywere adopted
andrevised, references totheofficial gazettes/compendia inwhich theywerepublished) arereferred
tointhisnotification. Itshould bepointed outthatinthenotification special mention wasmade of
theparticular importance ofthecantonal codes ofprocedure. Given theirnumber andthecomplexity
ofthematter, Switzerland didnottransmit theactual textsofthese codes.
Inorder tomake thisdocument easier toread, therelevant federal lawsandregulations most
often referred toareenumerated inthenon-exhaustive listbelow. Itshould beborne inmind that,
inaddition tothelegislative texts, court decisions andlegal opinion playanimportant partinthe
development ofSwiss law,particularly withregard tothegeneral principles oflaw.
1. Thespecial intellectual property lawsandregulations areinparticular thefollowing:
- TheFederal LawonCopyright andNeighbouring Rights (LDA);
- theOrdinance onCopyright andNeighbouring Rights (ODAu);
- theFederal LawontheProtection ofTopographies ofSemi-Conductor Products (LTo);
- theOrdinance ontheProtection ofTopographies ofSemi-Conductor Products (OTo);
- theFederal LawontheProtection ofTrademarks andIndications ofSource (LPM);
- theOrdinance ontheProtection ofTrademarks (OPM);
1Document IP/C/5IP/N/6/CHE/1
Page2
- theFederal LawonIndustrial Designs andModels (LDMI);
- theOrdinance onIndustrial Designs (ODMI);
- theFederal LawonPatents forInventions (LBI);
- theOrdinance onPatents forInventions (OBI);
- theFederal LawontheProtection ofNewPlant Varieties (LPOV);
- theFederal LawonUnfair Competition (LCD);
- theFederal LawonCartels andOther Impediments toCompetition (LCart).
2. Thefollowing lawscontain special provisions concerning enforcement andarealsoapplicable
tothefieldofintellectual property:
- theFederal LawontheLiability oftheConfederation, Members ofitsAuthorities and
itsOfficials (LRCF);
- theOrdinance relating totheLawonLiability (Ordinance onLiability);
- theFederal LawonAdministrative Procedures (LPA);
- theOrdinance onCosts andCompensation inrespect ofAdministrative Procedures;
- theFederal LawontheOrganization oftheJudicial System (OJ);
- thescale ofcosts allowed totheopposing party incases brought before theFederal
Court;
- theOrdinance ontheOrganization andProcedure ofFederal Appeal andArbitration
Committees;
- theSwiss Civil LawCode (CC);
- theSwiss Criminal LawCode (CP);
- theCode ofObligations (CO);
- theFederal LawonCivil Procedure (PCF);
- theFederal LawonCriminal LawProcedure (PPF);
- theOrdinance ontheCommunication ofDecisions taken bytheCantonal Authorities
inCriminal LawCases;
- theRegulation onCharges levied bytheCustoms Authorities;
- theOrdinance fixing themaximum amount atissue indisputes tobesettled via
procedures relating toconsumer protection orunfair competition.IP/N/6/CHE/1
Page3
3. Theimportance oftheFederal Constitution must beemphasized: itwastaken asabasis by
legislators when adopting thelawsreferred toinparagraphs 1and2above andbythecourts andlegal
writers fordeveloping anumber ofgeneral principles oflaw,suchaslegality, equality before the
law,good faithandproportionality.
Forinstance, violation oftheprinciple ofequality before thelaw(Article 4Cst)isaformal
denial ofjustice ifthecorrect procedures havenotbeenfollowed (particularly ifaperson hasnotbeen
given ahearing oradecision isdelayed without good cause) oramaterial denial ifitinvolves an
arbitrary act.
TheSwiss cantons alsohavetheirownconstitutions, which must beconsistent withfederal
law(Article 6Cst).
4. Theprinciple whereby public international lawispartofnational lawisalsoaccepted in
Switzerland asanunwritten (uncodified) principle. Thecourts andthelegalliterature unanimously
agree thatthisprinciple applies notonlytocustomary international lawbutalsotointernational treaties.
Intheevent ofadiscrepancy, international lawtakes precedence. Swiss lawmust beinterpreted in
thelightofinternational law(Federal Court Judgment intheFrigerio case[ATF 94[1968] I669,672]).
Swiss courts arethusrequired tocomply withinternational obligations thatarebinding uponSwitzerland
when theyareapplying aprovision ofnational lawtoaspecific case.
5. Inadditiontothetextsreferredtoinparagraphs1,2and3aboveandtheinternationalintellectual
property agreements suchastheTRIPS Agreement ortheBerne andParis Conventions, itshould also
bepointed outthatSwitzerland isparty tointernational treaties onjudicial proceedings, suchasthe
LuganoConvention(Conventionof16September1988onJurisdictionandtheEnforcementofJudgments
inCivilandCommercial Matters; RS0.275.11). TheConvention fortheProtection ofHuman Rights
andFundamental Freedoms of4November 1950 (CDEH; RS0.101) isalsoanimportant basis,
especially withregard tocertain general principles oflaw,particularly therighttobegiven ahearing.
6. Lastly, itshould benoted thatSwitzerland andthePrincipality ofLiechtenstein formasingle
customs territory byvirtue oftheCustoms Union Treaty of29March 1923 (seenotification
IP/N/4/CHE/1).
Under theCustoms Union Treaty thetwocountries concluded, on22December 1978, the
bilateral Treaty onPatents, whereby thelawapplicable tothetwocountries istheSwiss Federal Law
onPatents (LBI).
7. Inviewofthecomplexityofthesubjectandthedifficultyoffullyreflectingthesystem,Switzerland
reserves theright torevise thiscommunication asandwhen necessary.
Civil andadministrative procedures andremedies
(a) Civil judicial procedures andremedies
Asindicated inthepreliminary remarks, civiljudicial procedures aregoverned bycantonal
procedural lawsandtheFederal LawontheOrganization oftheJudicial System (OJ)unless thespecial
intellectual property lawscontain specific provisions.
Civil judicial remedies areregulated under federal legislation.IP/N/6/CHE/1
Page4
1. Specify thecourts which have jurisdiction overIPRinfringement cases
1.1 Thespecial federal intellectual property lawsexpressly require eachcanton todesignate asingle
court toberesponsible throughout itsterritory fordealing withcivilactions concerning intellectual
property rights (Article 64LDA; Article 10(1) LTo; Article 58LPM; Article 76(1) LBI; Article 42
LPOV; Article 33(1) LDMI; Article 14LCart). Forinstance, inthecanton ofGeneva, theCourt
ofJustice (“Cour deJustice ”)istheonlycourt competent todetermine intellectual property matters,
while inthecantons ofZürich andBerne itistheCommercial Court (“Handelsgericht ”).Inthese
three examples thecourt ofsolejurisdiction isalsothecourt oflastinstance atcantonal level.
Thecanton designates thecompetent court initscodeofcivillawprocedure anditslawon
theorganization ofthejudicial system.
Anappeal totheFederal Court against decisions ofthecantonal courts isadmissible indisputes
relating tointellectual property rights (except forthoseconcerning theprotection ofindustrial orbusiness
secrets), irrespective ofthesuminvolved (Article 45(a) OJ).
1.2 TheLawonUnfair Competition (LCD), which contains interaliaprovisions onindustrial or
business secrets andonincitement tobetray these secrets, doesnotexpressly provide forasingle
competent court. Itleaves ittothecantons todetermine jurisdiction ratione materiae .However, if
there isaclose connection withacivillawdispute under afederal lawwhich provides forasingle
cantonal court, theaction concerning unfair competition mayalsobebrought before thatcourt
(Article 12(2) LCD).
With regard tounfair competition anappeal totheFederal Court isadmissible against final
decisions taken bythecantonal courts which cannot bethesubject ofanordinary appeal under cantonal
lawif,according tothesubmissions oftheparties concerned, thevalue oftherights contested before
thefinalcantonal authority amounts toatleastSwF8,000 (Article 46OJ).Where provision hasbeen
made forasingle cantonal court, theappeal totheFederal Court isadmissible irrespective ofthesum
involved (Article 12(2) LCD).
2. Which persons havestanding toassert IPRs? How maytheyberepresented? Arethere
requirements formandatory personal appearances before thecourt bytheright holder?
2.1 Which persons have standing toassert IPRs?
2.1.1 Standing toactpursuant toacontractual obligation:
Anyholder ofaright overanintangible asset (i.e.theholder ofanexclusive IPRorthe
beneficiary ofsucharight (alicensee, forinstance)) whose right isorislikely tobeinfringed has
standing toact(Article 61andArticle 62LDA; Article 10(1) LTo; Articles 52,53and55LPM;
Article 72LBI; Article 5(2)LDMI). TheLDA, forinstance, states thatwhere there areanumber
ofauthors, eachco-author hasstanding tobring anaction against anyone whohasinfringed therights
overthecommon work; however, hemaydosoonlyonbehalf ofallthose concerned (Article 7(3)
LDA). With regard tosoftware, onlytheemployer isauthorized toappeal tothecourts toprevent
theunlawful useofsoftware developed byanemployee intheperformance ofhisduties intheservice
oftheemployer andinaccordance withhiscontractual obligations (seeArticle 17LDA).
Insofar asindications ofsource areconcerned, trade orbusiness associations maybring an
action forthedeclaration ofarightoralegalrelationship oranaction pursuant toacontractual obligation
provided thattheir statutes authorize them todefend theeconomic interests oftheir members
(Article 56(1a) LPM). Standing toactwithregard toindications ofsource isalsogranted tonationalIP/N/6/CHE/1
Page5
orregionalorganizationswhichareconcerned,inaccordancewiththeirstatutes,withconsumerprotection
(Article 56(1b) LPM). These twocategories oforganization alsohavestanding tobring anaction for
adeclaration involving aguarantee mark oracollective mark (Article 56(2) LPM).
2.1.2 Standing toactforthedeclaration ofaright:
Anyone withalegitimate interest inthedeclaration ofarightoralegalrelationship hasstanding
tobring anaction (seeArticle 61LDA; Article 10(1) LTo; Article 52LPM; Articles 28and74
LBI; Article 9(1c) LCD; Article 13LDMI).
2.1.3 Standing toactfortheassignment ofaright:
Where apatent application hasbeenfiledbyaperson whohadnorighttobegranted thepatent,
theregistered holder mayrequest thatthepatent application, orthepatent itself ifithasalready been
granted, beassigned (Article 29(1) LBI). Asimilar action forassignment isprovided forunder the
trademark law(Article 53(1) LPM).
2.2 How maytheyberepresented?
Although itmaynotbeinaposition dosoitself, eachparty hastherighttoconduct itscase
itself ortoberepresented inlegalproceedings byalawyer withpower ofattorney. Legal persons
andlimited orcommercial partnerships mayberepresented byalawyer oraperson responsible for
managing theenterprise andauthorized tosign.
Theability tobring legalproceedings onbehalf ofothers asaprofessional attorney (i.e.as
alawyer) isgoverned bythespecific lawsconcerning theprofession oflawyer. Therequirement that
alawyer must beamember ofthebarassociation ofthecanton inwhich theaction isbrought has
beenrelaxed withtheentry intoforce oftheFederal Lawof6October 1995 ontheInternal Market
(RS943.02), which nowenables lawyers topractise inanycanton. Only lawyers andprofessors of
lawatSwiss universities mayappear asattorneys before theFederal Court; disputes arising incantons
where there arenorestrictions onmembership ofabarassociation areunaffected (Article 29(2) OJ).
2.3 Arethere requirements formandatory personal appearances before thecourt bytheright
holder?
Yes.
Under theordinary procedures ofmost cantons, thebringing ofanaction ispreceded byan
attempt atconciliation. Theparties must appear inperson attheconciliation hearing iftheylivein
theareaorthejudge orders themtodoso.However, lawyers mayalsoaccompany theirclients. Except
intheconciliation hearing, itisnotmandatory foraparty toappear inperson before thecourt.
Ifthecourt considers itnecessary, itmay, however, summon aparty, oralltheparties, to
appear before thecourt inorder tobequestioned. Ifaparty failstoturnupwithout providing a
satisfactory explanation, thecourt hasthediscretion todecide whateffect thisconduct willhaveon
thegiving ofevidence, dueaccount being taken ofallthecircumstances involved (seeArticle 40PCF).
Inaddition, itmaypunish theparty concerned byimposing anadministrative fine.
3. What authority dothejudicial authorities have toorder, attherequest ofanopposing
party, aparty toaproceeding toproduce evidence which lieswithin itscontrol?IP/N/6/CHE/1
Page6
Asageneral ruleeachparty must, unless thelawstipulates otherwise, prove thefactswhich
itcitesinorder todeduce itsright(Article 8CC). Butatthesame timetheparties arerequired to
produce inthelegalproceedings alltheevidence which lieswithin theircontrol (seeArticle 50(1) PCF).
Ifaparty claims thatadocument containing acrucial itemofevidence lieswithin thecontrol ofthe
opposing party orathirdparty, thecourt may, attherequest ofthatparty, order theopposing party
orthirdparty topresent thatitemofevidence. Theopposing party mayoppose theadducing ofthe
evidence ortheformal notice toproduce apiece ofevidence inthesubsequent proceedings onlyif
itimmediately establishes thattheapplicant hasnolegalinterest.
Ifaparty disputes being inpossession ofanitemofevidence, thejudicial authorities maycall
upon it,subject tothestatutory penalties, toindicate where thisitemofevidence (e.g.adocument)
canbefound (seeArticle 50(1) PCF). Ifthecourt considers itnecessary, itmayalsocallupon the
party, subject tothestatutory penalties, torepeat itsstatements onspecific facts(seeArticle 64(1) PCF).
Anyone whofailstocomply withadecision served byacompetent authority orofficial under threat
ofthepenalty provided forinArticle 292CP(fineorshort period ofimprisonment) willbepunished
byoneofthese penalties. Anyone whoisaparty tocivilproceedings and,afterbeing expressly called
upon bythejudge totellthetruthandbeing made aware ofthepenal consequences offailing todo
so,makes afalsestatement concerning thefactswhich constitutes evidence, willbepunished bypenal
servitude foraperiod notexceeding three years orimprisonment (Article 306CP).
Fortheopposing party theorder togiveevidence isnotenforceable. Thejudicial authorities
havenodirect wayofforcing aparty tofurnish evidence thathasbeenrequested. Nevertheless, the
attitude oftheparties concerned during theproceedings maybetaken intoconsideration when assessing
theevidence. Thejudge isrequired toassess theevidence asheseesfit.Hewilltherefore takeinto
account thefailure ofaparty tocomply withasummons toattend inperson, therefusal toanswer
aquestion putbythejudge ortoproduce required evidence orindicate where itcanbefound. Inthe
sameway,itassesses theattitude ofaparty whodeliberately disposes ofevidence ormakes itunusable
(seeArticle 40andArticle 50(2) PCF). Inallcases thejudge mayconsider thefactwhich wasto
beproven bythisevidence tohavebeenestablished beyond doubt.
Documentswhichmaynot,becauseoftheirnature,beproducedincourtorwhichwoulddamage
legitimate interests maybeconsulted insitu(Article 53PCF).
Ifadocument istobefound within thecontrol ofathirdparty, thatparty isrequired topresent
thedocument inquestion. Thisobligation iswaived ifthecontent ofthedocument concerns factsin
respect ofwhich itcould refuse togiveevidence asawitness pursuant toArticle 42PCF (see
Article 51(1) CPC).
4. What means exist toidentify andprotect confidential information brought forward as
evidence?
Thecourt hasthepower todecide whether andtowhatextent itisnecessary andadmissible
forthose passages ofadocument which arenotrelevant tobehidden from theviewofthejudge and
theparties byaffixing sealsorbyanyother suitable means (seeArticle 5(2)PCF).
Where information orpassages arerelevant, theprotection ofconfidential matters (industrial
orbusiness secrets) asevidence isguaranteed (seeArticle 68(1) LBI;Article 40(1) LPOV; Article 15(1)
LCD; Article 16(1) LCart). Thisgeneral ruleistobeobserved inallcivil, administrative andcriminal
proceedings concerning theprotection ofintangible assets.
Thejudge mayorder adocument containing confidential information tobeconcealed wholly
orpartly from theopposing party or-where necessary from bothparties -(seeArticle 38PCF;IP/N/6/CHE/1
Page7
Article 68(2) LBI; Article 40(2) LPOV; Article 15(2) LCD; Article 16(2) LCart). Iftherearegrounds
forwithholding onlycertain passages ofadocument, thecourt mayorder those passages tobeconcealed
from view byaffixing seals orinsome other way(seeArticle 51(1) PCF). Itmayalsoorder the
presiding magistrate oradelegation fromthecourt toexamine confidential information atthepremises
oftheholder ofthatinformation, inorder toprevent legitimate interests frombeing damaged bythe
disclosure ofthedocuments.
Witnesses mayrefuse totestify concerning matters which, ifrevealed, would expose them to
definite pecuniary lossorother damage (seeArticle 42(1a) PCF). Inaddition, thecourt mayexempt
awitness fromrevealing professional secrets oranindustrial secret ifthewitness ’sinterest inkeeping
thesecret overrides aparty’sinterest inrevealing it(seeArticle 42(2) PCF).
5. Describetheremediesthatmaybeorderedbythejudicialauthoritiesandcriteria,legislative
orjurisprudential, fortheir use:
5.1 Injunctions
Theholder ofarightoveranintangible assetwhose IPRisorislikely tobeinfringed may
request thejudicial authorities toprevent thatfrom happening, ifitisimminent, ortoputastopto
itifitisstillgoing on(Article 62(1a) LDA; Article 10(1) LTo; Article 55(1) LPM; Article 72(1)
LBI; Article 5(2)LDMI; Article 9(1a) LCD). Itisnotnecessary toprove faultordamage. The
action toprevent animminent infringement (preventive injunction) presupposes asufficient interest;
thisexists iftheholder oftheIPRisdirectly threatened bytheunlawful act,i.e.ifthere areserious
grounds tofearinfringement oftheIPR. Thesubject oftheaction toprevent apersistent infringement
must bedefined precisely inthesubmissions accompanying theaction. Theplaintiff must givean
exhaustive description ofthedefendant ’sunlawful conduct, sothatnodifficulty canarisewhen enforcing
thejudgment. Theinjunction is,asamatter ofcourse, coupled withthethreat ofthepenalties provided
forinArticle 292CP(fineorimprisonment) addressed tothedefendant.
5.2 Damages, including recovery ofprofits, andexpenses, including attorney ’sfees
5.2.1 Damages
Anyone who, either intentionally, orthrough negligence orcarelessness, infringes anIPRand
causes damage totheIPRholder isrequired under theCO(Article 62(2) LDA; Article 10(1) LTO;
Article 5(2)LPM; Article 7(1)LBI; Article 2(1)andArticle 26LDMI; Article 9(3)LCD) torepair
thatdamage. Therightholder thenhasachoice between thevarious actions fordamages andrecovery
provided forunder theCO:anaction forthepayment ofdamages (damnum emergens etlucrum cessans)
(Article 41etseq.CO), anaction forsurrender oftheproceeds ofunjust enrichment (Article 62CO),
anaction tocompensate fornon-pecuniary damage (Article 49CO), andanaction forthehanding-over
ofearnings inaccordance withtheprinciples ofimperfect business management (Article 423CO).
Iftherightholder isunable toquantify thedamage hehassuffered ortheinfringer ’sunlawful
profit, hemayaskthejudge tousehisdiscretion indetermining theamount ofcompensation (exaequo
etbono),inthelightoftheordinary runofevents andthemeasures taken bytheinjured party
(Article 42(2) CO).
5.2.2 Legal fees
Thecourt rules asamatter ofcourse onthecosts ofthecase. Theparties provide adetailed
statement oftheirexpenses before thejudgment isdelivered. Asageneral rule,thelegal costs are
awarded against theparty which haslostthecase(seeArticle 156(1) OJ). Ifneither ofthepartiesIP/N/6/CHE/1
Page8
haswonthecaseonallcounts orthepartywhich haslostgenuinely believes thatitisjustified inpursuing
thecase,thecostsmaybesharedproportionallybetweentheparties(seeArticle156(3)OJ).Unnecessary
expenses areborne bytheparty which incurred them (seeArticle 156(6) OJ).
Attherequest oftheparties thecourt decides, byruling onthedispute itself, whether and
towhatextent thecostsoftheparty which haswonthecasewillbeborne bytheparty which haslost
(seeArticle 159(1) OJ). Asageneral rulethelosing party isrequired toreimburse allessential costs
occasioned bythedispute (seeArticle 159(2) OJ).Thecostsinclude thecompensation fortheopposing
party andtheattorney ’sfees. They mustcover allessential costs occasioned bythedispute. Ifthe
judgment doesnotfallexclusively infavour ofoneparty ortheparty which haslostgenuinely believes
thatitisjustified inpursuing thecase, thecosts maybeshared proportionally bytheparties (see
Article 159(3) OJ).
5.3 Destruction orother disposal ofinfringing goods andmaterials/implements fortheir
production
Inallfields ofintellectual property thecourt mayorder items which havebeenmade orused
unlawfully, aswellasinstruments, toolsandother resources intended mainly formanufacturing them,
tobeconfiscated, destroyed orrendered unfitforuse(seeArticle 63(1) LDA; Article 10(1) Lto;
Article 29(1) LDMI; Article 69(1) LBI; Article 57LPM). Anexception ismade forworks of
architecture already constructed (Article 63(2) LDA) andsemi-conductor products acquired ingood
faithwhich contain illegal copies oftopographies (Article 10(2) LTo). Itispermitted toputthelatter
backintocirculation; however, theproducer isentitled toreceive afairpayment. Intheevent of
adispute thecourt determines whether theentitlement topayment issubstantiated and,ifso,fixes
theamount ofthepayment (Article 8LTo).
Inthecaseofpatents andindustrial designs thecourt may-asafurther possibility -order
theconfiscated items tobesoldoff,provided thattherightholder agrees tothis.
With regard totrademarks, adistinction ismade between anarticle bearing amark which is
counterfeit orillegal insome otherwayandthearticle itself. Itisthemark which isdeemed toconstitute
abreach oftherighttothemark (except inthecaseofamark relating totheform, where thearticle
isindividualized bytheformitself). According totrademark lawitisforthecourt todecide “whether
themark orindication ofsource istoberendered unrecognisable orwhether thearticles aretobe
rendered unfitforuse,destroyed orusedinaparticular manner ”(Article 57(2) LPM).
Even ifthecaseisdismissed, thecourt mayorder thedestruction ofarticles manufactured
inbreachofanIPRandoftheinstruments,toolsandotherresourcesintendedmainlyfortheinfringement
ofanIPR(Article 69(3) LBI; Article 29(2) LDMI). Conduct oradefactosituation which isobjectively
unlawful issufficient.
5.4 Anyother remedies
Publication ofthejudgment
Attherequest oftheparty which haswonthecasethecourt mayorder thejudgment tobe
published attheexpense oftheopposing party (Article 66LDA; Article 10(1) LTo; Article 60LPM;
Article 70(1) LBI; Article 30LDMI; Article 9(2)LCD).
6. Inwhat circumstances, ifany, dojudicial authorities have theauthority toorder the
infringer toinform theright holder oftheidentity ofthird persons involved intheproduction
anddistribution ofthegoods orservices found tobeinfringing andoftheirchannels ofdistribution?IP/N/6/CHE/1
Page9
TheLPM, theLDA andtheLToauthorize therightholder whose rightisbeing orislikely
tobeinfringed toaskthejudge torequire theother party toindicate thesource ofthose goods inits
possession which havebeenunlawfully reproduced orunlawfully provided withadistinctive sign
(Article 62(1c) LDA; Article 10(1) LTo; Article 55(1c) LPM). Thelawsonpatents andindustrial
designs stipulate thattherefusal todeclare tothe“competent authority ”thesource ofthose products
initspossession thathave been unlawfully manufactured (seeArticle 66(b) LBI; Article 24,
subparagraph 4,LDMI) maygiverisetocivilorcriminal proceedings.
7. Describe provisions relating totheindemnification ofdefendants wrongfully enjoined.
Towhat extent arepublic authorities and/or officials liable insuchasituation andwhat “remedial
measures ”areapplicable tothem?
7.1 Asageneral rulethepartywhich losesthecasewillbeordered toreimburse infulltheopposing
party’scosts(seeArticle 156(1) OJ).Thisincludes thelegalexpenses, disbursements, attorney ’sfees
andthecompensation fortheopposing party.
If,attherequest oftheplaintiff, thecourt haswrongfully enjoined thedefendant, thelatter
may, onthebasisofArticles 41etseq.CO,claim compensation viatheordinary procedure, provided
thathehassuffered damage asaresult ofthejudgment thatwasdelivered, thattheplaintiff ’spetition
constitutes anunlawful actandthattheplaintiff brought theaction intentionally, through negligence
orserious carelessness, orthathehascaused thedamage intentionally bymeans ofaction contrary
toaccepted standards ofbehaviour. Iftheplaintiff has,asaresult ofnegligence orslight carelessness,
wrongly assessed alegal situation, hemaybeordered toreimburse thecosts andexpenses infull.
According toprecedents established bytheFederal Court, itwould becontrary tothelegal system
alsotopermit thedefendant toclaim compensation from theplaintiff (seeATF117II396,3b).
Intheevent ofunsubstantiated provisional measures, thepossibility ofbringing anaction via
theordinary procedure against theplaintiff forcompensation inrespect ofthedamage isexplicitly
provided forinthefederal intellectual property laws(seeArticle 28a(1)LDMI; Article 80(1) LBI;
Article 46(1) LPOV; Article 59(4) LPM; Article 65(4) LDA; Article 10(1) LTo; Article 14LCD;
Article 17(2) LCart andthegeneral ruleofArticle 28f(1) CC). Ifthepetition forprovisional measures
proves nottohavebeenmaterially substantiated, theplaintiff isrequired tocompensate forthedamage
caused tothedefendant. Thejudge may, however, refuse toaward compensation orreduce itifthe
plaintiff hasnotbeennegligent orhasonlybeenslightly negligent (Article 28f(1) CC). Theguarantees
provided bytheplaintiff willnotbereturned tohimuntilitiscertain thatanaction fordamages will
notbebrought; thecourt mayspecify asuitable period within which theopposing party mustbring
hisaction, informing himthatifhefailstoactwithin thatperiod, theguarantees willbereturned to
theplaintiff (seeArticle 28a(3) LDMI; Article 80(3) LBI; Article 46(3) LPOV; Article 59(4) LPM;
Article 65(4) LDA; Article 10(1) LTo; Article 14LCD; Article 17(2) LCart; Article 28f(3) CC).
7.2 Whether decisions orjudgments areerroneous is,inprinciple, verified through thenormal
channels ofappeal. Thefactthatanappeal isallowed simply means thattheactcomplained ofis
unlawful. Theauthority and/or thepublic servant inquestion isnotliable insuchasituation. According
tothedecisions oftheFederal Court, anunlawful actgiving risetoliability canoccur onlyifthere
hasbeenaserious andobvious error. Inthecaseofpublic authorities andofficials, theideaofan
unlawful actistiedupwiththatofabreach ofofficial duties. Anunlawful actoccurs ifthejudge or
thepublic servant isguilty ofnegligence oranerror which would nothavebeenperpetrated bya
normally conscientious magistrate (ATF 112II231). Iftheyacted orintended toactingood faith
when, attherequest oftheplaintiff, theyenjoined aparticular course ofaction, proceedings fordamages
areexcluded.IP/N/6/CHE/1
Page10
Liability ofmembers oftheFederal Court, theFederal Institute forIntellectual Property and
theindependent federal authorities andcommissions ofthefederal courts andthefederal administration
vis-à-vis thirdparties isgoverned bytheFederal LawontheLiability oftheConfederation, Members
ofitsAuthorities anditsOfficials (RS170.32, LRCF; seeArticle 1(1)LRCF). According to
Article 3(1)LRCF, theConfederation isliable fordamage caused unlawfully toathirdparty byan
officialintheperformanceofhisduties.Theaggrievedpartycannottakeanyactionagainsttheoffending
official. However, thelegality ofthefinaldecisions, orders andjudgments cannot bere-examined
inanaction fordamages (seeArticle 12LRCF).
Each canton hasitsownlawsonliability forpublic lawacts. Infactmostcantons havethe
samesystem astheConfederation, withthecanton being liable fordamage unlawfully caused toathird
party byanofficial intheperformance ofhisduties. Inother cantons there iscumulative liability of
theStateanditsservants (thecanton thenhassubsidiary liability). Inonecanton theliability ofcantonal
officials isdirectly subject totheCode ofObligations (thecanton hasasubsidiary liability according
toArticle 55CO). Asunder federal law,thelawinmostcantons rulesoutthepossibility ofchallenging
thelegality offinaldecisions, orders andjudgments inanaction fordamages.
8. Describe provisions governing thelength andcostofproceedings. Provide anyavailable
dataontheactual duration ofproceedings andtheir cost.
8.1 Length ofproceedings
There arenodataontheduration oftheproceedings. Thisdepends onnumerous factors, which
varyaccording totheindividual case(complexity ofthematter, number ofexchanges ofdocuments,
appeal totheFederal Court, etc.).
8.2 Costofproceedings
Thecostofproceedings includes thelegalandother expenses (including theattorney ’sfees).
Thecantons fixthescaleoflegalcharges. Atthefederal levelthelegalcharges borne bytheparties
include court feesandtheexpenses allowed fortranslations, expert opinions, witnesses ’allowances,
etc.(Article 153(1) PCF). Thecourt feesattheFederal Court levelarefixed according tothesum
involved inthedispute, thescaleanddifficulty ofthecase, thewayinwhich theparties proceed and
theirrespective financial situations. Forinstance, thecourt feesforanappeal may, depending onthe
suminvolved, range between SwF200andSwF50,000 (seetheFederal Court ’sscaleofcourt fees,
31March 1992; RS173.118.1).
Atthecantonal levelthejudge determines theparties ’compensation andtheattorney ’sfees
within thelimits ofthescale ofcharges, using hisdiscretion toassess theamount oftimelost,the
nature ofthework doneandthesuminvolved inorimportance ofthecase(see,forinstance, Article 66
ofthecodeofcivillawprocedure ofthecanton ofBerne).
Forcases heard atthefederal level, ascale laiddown bythecourt establishes theamount of
thecosts awarded totheopposing party inrespect ofthecourt proceedings, account being taken of
hisattorney ’sfees(Article 160PCFandthescale ofcharges of9November 1978 forcosts awarded
totheopposing party incases heard bytheFederal Court (RS173.119.1)). Thecosts include the
compensation payable totheopposing party andhisattorney ’sfees.Thecompensation payable tothe
opposing party includes thereimbursement ofhisdisbursements. Where thisisjustified byspecial
circumstances, thecourt mayalsoaward compensation fortimeorearnings lostasaresult ofthedispute
(with regard tothefederal level, seeArticle 159OJ;seealsothereply toquestion 5,inparticular
reply 5.2.2). Foranappeal, theamount ofthefeesranges between SwF500andSwF4,000 (where
thesuminvolved islessthanSwF20,000), andSwF20,000 and1percent(where thesuminvolvedIP/N/6/CHE/1
Page11
ismore thanSwF5,000,000). Inexceptional cases, suchasthose requiring anextraordinary amount
ofwork (where theevidence islengthy anddifficult tosubstantiate andthecaseisabigandcomplex
one), theFederal Court mayaward feeswhich arehigher thanthenormal rate.
Itshould benoted thattheFederal Court ’sscaleofcharges doesnotapply torelations between
thelawyer andhisclient; these aregoverned bythecontract ofagency provisions ofthecodeof
obligations. Inthiscaseattorney ’sfeesarenormally calculated inaccordance withascalelaiddown
bythebarassociation ofeachcanton anddepend onanumber offactors, including theamount involved
inthedispute.
Legal aidisgranted toaparty “inneed”:thisapplies atboththefederal level(Article 152
OJ)andthecantonal level(see,forinstance, Article 77ofthecodeofcivillawprocedure ofthecanton
ofBerne).
Inthelightoftheforegoing, itisdifficult toputaprecise figure onthetotalcostofacase
owing tonumerous factors which maybetaken intoaccount, suchasthesuminvolved inthedispute,
thelength oftheproceedings, thenumber andlength ofthehearings, thecostofexpert opinions and
witnesses ’allowances. However, thecostoflegalproceedings inSwitzerland doesnotappear tobe
particularly highorprohibitive compared withneighbouring countries orcountries withasimilar legal
system; nospecific complaints havebeenbrought totheattention oftheSwiss authorities.
(b) Administrative procedures andremedies
9. Reply totheabove questions inrelation toanyadministrative procedures onthemerits
andremedies thatmayresult from these procedures
Withregard tointellectual property, onlythefederal authorities areinvolved inadministrative
procedures. Articles 7to43oftheFederal LawonAdministrative Procedures (LPA) apply to
first-instance administrative procedures, i.e.before theFederal Institute forIntellectual Property. The
appeals procedure involving theAppeals Committee withregard toindustrial property matters is,
however, governed byArticles 44to71LPA(Article 71a(1) LPA). Where anadministrative-law appeal
totheFederal Court isadmissible, proceedings before thisauthority aregoverned byArticles 97to
115OJ.
Itshould bestressed thatSwiss intellectual property lawdoesnotprovide foradministrative
procedures onthemerits andremedies forIPRinfringements suchasthose referred towithin thecontext
ofjudicial proceedings. However, forreasons oftransparency ,adescription isgiven oftherules
which apply toadministrative procedures ingeneral. Thefollowing maybecited astypes of
administrative procedure towhich anIPRholder mayhaverecourse toassert hisright:
- Opposition procedure bytheholder inrespect ofaregistration which heconsiders to
beinconflict withhisIPR2;
- arequest forintervention attheborder.
2OppositionproceedingsarecoveredbyArticle62oftheTRIPSAgreemen t.Exceptinthecaseoftrademarks,
opposition proceedings maybeinitiated forreasons other thanthatofaconflict withaprior right.IP/N/6/CHE/1
Page12
9.1 Specify theadministrative authorities which havejurisdiction overIPRinfringement cases
Opposition procedure intheevent ofaconflict withaprior IPR
Thisprocedure isprovided forinthefieldoftrademarks, geographical indications andpatents.
Theholder ofapriormarkmaylodge anobjection toanewregistration withtheFederal Institute
forIntellectual Property within three months ofthatregistration being published (Article 31etseq.
LPM). Itisalsopossible tooppose patent applications subject toprior examination filedbefore
1October 19953(Articles 101and7aLBI).
Appeals against decisions oftheInstitute maybelodged withtheFederal Appeals Committee
insofar asintellectual property matters areconcerned (see,forinstance, Article 36LPM). TheAppeals
Committee ’sdecisions inopposition cases arefinal(Article 36(2) LPM; Article 100(w) OJ); inthis
context, theCommittee actsasanindependent court andapplies theLPA. Iftheobjector winshis
case, theregistration ofthemark willberevoked. Ifnot,hemaylodge acomplaint withthecivil
courts against theparty registered astheholder ofthemark orpatent.
With regard togeographical indications inrespect ofagricultural products andprocessed
agricultural products, anyone whocanprove alegitimate interest orthecantons maylodge anobjection
totheregistration ofageographical indication withtheFederal Agriculture Office. Appeals against
these decisions aredealtwithinthefirstinstance bytheCommission forappellations oforigin and
geographical indications andinthefinalinstance bytheFederal Court (seeArticles 10and11ofthe
Ordinance ontheProtection ofAppellations ofOrigin andGeographical Indications inrespect of
Agricultural Products andProcessed Agricultural Products). Among thepossible grounds forobjection
mention maybemade ofaconflict withawell-known orreputable mark orname which iscompletely
orpartly homonymous andhasbeeninuseforalongtime.
Measures attheborder
TheCustoms Authorities areresponsible formeasures attheborder. They maythemselves
decide todraw theattention ofthepersons referred tobelow inreply 9.2.1 tocertain suspect
consignments. Attherequest ofthose persons theymayrefuse toallow products which donotcomply
withSwiss lawtoenter intofreecirculation. TheCustoms Authorities giveadefinitive ruling (see,
forinstance, Article 73(3) LPM). Theintroduction ofanappeals procedure would runcounter tothe
goalpursued bytheCustoms Authorities, viz.toactinassimple andrapid amanner aspossible to
givetheapplicant thetimetoobtain provisional measures fromthecivilcourt. Anappeal could actually
prevent thecustoms from acting intime. Itshould benoted thatifsomeone applies forameasure
attheborder, thatperson must, within theprescribed periods, request provisional measures fromthe
civillawjudicial authorities (see,forinstance, Article 77(2) LDA; Article 56(3) OPM).
Seealsothereplies toquestions 15to19.
9.2 Which persons havestanding toassert IPRs? How maytheyberepresented? Arethere
requirements formandatory personal appearances before theadministrative authority bythe
right holder?
3Patent applications concerning inventions inthefields oftextile fibre processing andtimemeasurement
technology (Article 87etseq.LBI)aresubject toprior examination. Thisexamination wasabolished witheffect
from1October 1995. Theprovisions relating tosuchapplications, including those connected withtheopposition
procedure, have been maintained forapplications which arestillpending.IP/N/6/CHE/1
Page13
9.2.1 Which persons have standing toassert IPRs?
Opposition procedure intheevent ofconflict withaprior right
Withregard totrademarks, onlytheholder ofapriormark, which hasbeenfiledorregistered,
orawell-known mark mayoppose thesubsequent registration ofanother mark within three months
ofthatmark being published (Article 31LPM). Insofar aspatents areconcerned, forapplications
subject toprior examination filedbefore 1October 1995(seeinparticular footnote 1),theconditions
aresimilar: anyinterested party may, within three months ofpublication [ofapatent application],
oppose theissuing ofthepatent (Article 101LBI). Withregard toanappeal totheAppeals Committee
forintellectual property matters against decisions concerning opposition applications, anyone involved
asaparty totheprocedure which ledtothedecision appealed against oranyone excluded from the
procedure bythedecision appealed against hasstanding toact.Theopposing party hasstanding to
appeal onlyifithasbeenadmitted asaparty totheopposition procedure (Article 106aLBI).
Measures attheborder
Thefollowing havestanding toapply foraction tobetaken: theholder ofatrademark, copyright
orneighbouring right, therighttoanindustrial design orintegrated circuit topography, theregistered
holder ofageographical indication, copyright orneighbouring rights collecting societies oreventrade
orbusiness associations which areauthorized todosowithregard togeographical indications.
(Article 75(1) LDA andArticle 12LTowithacross-reference toArticle 75(1) LDA; Article 71(1)
LPM; Article 33bLDMI).
Seealsothereplies toquestions 15to19.
9.2.2 How maytheyberepresented?
Atallstages oftheadministrative procedure aparty mayberepresented, unless ithastoact
inperson, orbeassisted ifthispossibility isnotruled outinviewoftheurgency ofanofficial inquiry.
Theperson representing orassisting theparty inquestion mustenjoy civicrights (Article 11LPA).
Inadministrative procedures, inboththefirstandfinalinstance, there isnoobligation tobe
represented byalawyer (seeArticle 11LPA; conversely Article 29(2) OJ).
Nevertheless, there areprovisions requiring parties toberepresented byanattorney: anyone
whoispartytoanadministrative procedure concerning intellectual property andwhoisneither resident
innorhashisheadoffice inSwitzerland mustberepresented byanattorney established inSwitzerland
(Article 42LPM; Article 5OPM; Article 13LBIandArticle 8OBI). Inaddition, ifmore than
20people submit collective orindividual applications todefend thesame interests, theauthority may
require them toselect, fortheprocedure, oneormore representatives (Article 11aLPA).
9.2.3 Arethere requirements formandatory personal appearances before theadministrative
authority bytheright holder?
Theparties arerequired tocollaborate inestablishing thefactsinprocedures theyhavetaken
themselves iftheyaremaking independent applications andhaveawider obligation under afederal
lawtoprovide ordisclose information. Theauthority maydeclare applications inadmissible ifthe
parties refuse toprovide thenecessary assistance which canbeexpected ofthem (Article 13LPA).
9.3 Whatauthoritydotheadministrativeauthoritieshavetoorder,attherequestofanopposing
party, aparty toanadministrative procedure toproduce evidence which lieswithin itscontrol?IP/N/6/CHE/1
Page14
TheLPAdoesnotcontain anydirect orexhaustive answer tothisquestion. With regard to
theprobatory procedure, therulesoffederal civillawprocedures apply mutatis mutandis (Article 19
LPA), namely those relating toproof andevidence suchasthatprovided bywitnesses, documents,
visual inspection andexperts (seethereplies toquestion 3).
TheLPAdoesnotprovide foranymeans ofcoercion intheevent ofarefusal tocooperate,
apart from thepossibility ofinvoking, forinstance, Article 292oftheCriminal Code (CP)ordirect
enforcement against theperson oftheobligor orhisassets (Article 41LPA). Theappeals authority
mayreprimand orimpose adisciplinary fineofuptoSwF500ontheparties ortheirrepresentative
iftheybreak withtheconventions ordisrupt theconduct ofacase(Article 60LPA). Itshould be
noted thattheauthority must notapply ameans ofconstraint which ismore rigorous thanrequired
bythecircumstances (proportionality rule; Article 42LPA).
9.4 What means exist toidentify andprotect confidential information brought forward as
evidence?
Theparty oritsattorney isentitled toconsult, under theauspices oftheauthority called upon
tohearanddetermine thematter, alldocuments serving asevidence (Article 26(1) LPA). Theauthority
mayrefuse permission toconsult thedocuments onlyonthefollowing conditions: ifimportant public
interests oftheConfederation orthecantons (inparticular theinternal orexternal security ofthe
Confederation) orimportant private interests (particularly those oftheopposing party) require that
secrecy bemaintained oriftheinterests ofanofficial enquiry which hasnotyetbeenclosed sorequire
(Article 27(1) LPA). Refusal toauthorize consultation ofdocuments mayextend onlytothose which
havetobekeptsecret (Article 27(2) LPA). Theprovisions oftheFederal LawonCivil Procedure
(PCF) apply mutatis mutandis totheprotection ofconfidential information intheproduction ofthe
documents heldbythirdparties andintheprocedures governing thegiving ofevidence (Article 19LPA,
which hasacross-reference toArticles 42and51PCF); seethereplies toquestion 4.
9.5 Describe theremedies thatmaybeordered bytheadministrative authorities andcriteria,
legislative orjurisprudential, fortheir use:
9.5.1 Injunctions
AnIPRholder whose IPRisbeing orislikely tobeinfringed must asktheciviljudicial
authorities togrant injunctions (seethereply toquestion 5.1). TheFederal Institute forIntellectual
Property andtheFederal Appeals Committee forintellectual property matters cannot grantinjunctions.
9.5.2 Damages, including recovery ofprofits, andexpenses, including attorney ’sfees
(a) Damages
AnIPRholder whose rightisbeing orislikely tobeinfringed mustasktheciviljudicial
authorities toaward damages (seereply toquestion 5.2.1).
(b) Administrative expenses
Thecompetent authority alsodetermines theprocedural andlegal costs (Article 63
and64LPA). ThustheFederal Institute forIntellectual Property, forinstance, decides
byruling ontheopposition itself, whether andtowhatextent thecosts oftheparty
which winsthecasewillbeborne bythelosing party (Article 34LPM).IP/N/6/CHE/1
Page15
Procedural costs: asageneral rule,theprocedural costs, which comprise thefeefor
granting theorder, theadministrative feesanddisbursements, areawarded against the
losing party. Ifthelatter isnotfound against onallcounts, these costs arereduced.
Inexceptional cases theymayberemitted infull.Noprocedural costsmaybeawarded
against thefederal authorities. Costs maybeawarded against theparty which haswon
thecaseifithasincurred those costsbyinfringing procedural rules(Article 63LPA).
Legal costs: Thecompetent authority may, automatically oruponrequest, award the
party which haswononallorsome ofthecounts, compensation fortheessential,
relatively highexpenses ithasincurred, particularly inrespect ofattorney ’sfees
(Article 64LPA).
Therules oncosts andcompensation inconnection withadministrative proceedings
arecontained intheOrdinance onCosts andCompensation inrespect ofAdministrative
Procedures of10September 1969 (RS172.041.0).
9.5.3 Destruction orotherdisposal ofinfringing goods andmaterials/implements fortheirproduction
Thedestruction orother disposal ofsuchgoods maybeordered onlybythejudicial authorities.
Seereply toquestion 5.3above.
9.5.4 Other remedies
Theadministrative authorities maynotorder other remedies suchasthose described inthe
reply toquestion 5.4above.
9.6 Inwhat circumstances, ifany,doadministrative authorities have theauthority toorder
theinfringer toinform theright holder oftheidentity ofthird persons involved intheproduction
anddistribution ofthegoods orservices found tobeinfringing andoftheirchannels ofdistribution?
Seereply toquestion 5.6above.
9.7 Describe provisions relating totheindemnification ofdefendants wrongfully enjoined.
Towhat extent arepublic authorities and/or officials liable insuchasituation andwhat “remedial
measures ”areapplicable tothem?
Seereply 7.2.
Under theFederal LawontheLiability oftheConfederation, Members ofitsAuthorities and
itsOfficials (LRCF), theConfederation isliable forthedamage caused unlawfully toathird party
byanofficial intheperformance ofhisduties, irrespective ofwhether theofficial wasnegligent. The
injured party cannot bring anaction against thenegligent official. Ifathird party claims damages
from theConfederation, thelatter immediately notifies theofficial, against whom itcould exercise
arightofappeal (Article 3).IftheConfederation compensates forthedamage, itmaybring anaction
forindemnity against theofficial ifhecaused thedamage intentionally orasaresult ofgross negligence,
evenaftertheemployer/employee relationship hasbeenterminated (Article 6).Theofficial isliable
fordamage caused directly totheConfederation asaresult ofaviolation ofhisofficial duties, either
intentionally orthrough serious negligence (Article 7).Thegeneral provisions onthecreation of
obligations resulting from unlawful acts(Code ofObligations) areapplicable totheConfederation ’s
claims against itsofficials (Article 9(1)). Theprovisions concerning officials apply interaliatomembers
oftheFederal Court, members oftheindependent federal authorities andcommittees ofthefederal
courts andofthefederal administration, toofficials andother servants oftheConfederation andtoIP/N/6/CHE/1
Page16
allpersons directly entrusted withpublic lawtasks bytheConfederation (Article 1(1), Article 2(1),
Articles 3to10). Under thesame lawcriminal proceedings arealsopossible iffelonies or
misdemeanours arecommitted byofficials intheperformance oftheirduties (Article 13etseq.).
Provision isalsomade fordisciplinary liability (Articles 17-18). Ifabody oranemployee ofan
independent institution oftheordinary civilservice entrusted bytheConfederation withcarrying out
public lawtasks wrongfully causes, intheperformance ofthese activities, damage toathirdparty,
theinstitution isliable forthiswrong vis-à-vis theinjured party andtheConfederation isliable, vis-à-vis
theinjured party, forthedamage inrespect ofwhich theinstitution isnotabletoprovide compensation.
Itcan-ascantheinstitution -takeaction against thenegligent official (Article 19).
9.8 Describe provisions governing thelength andcostofproceedings. Provide anyavailable
dataontheactual duration ofproceedings andtheir cost.
Cost: Forexample, thecharge foropposing marks isSwF800(Article 31(2) LPM, Article 2
andAnnex, paragraph IoftheOrdinance ontheCharges oftheFederal Institute forIntellectual
Property).
TheInstitute decides whether andtowhat extent thecosts oftheparty which winsthecase
willbeborne bytheparty which loses (Article 34LPM; Article 24OPM). Thecosts must cover
thefollowing expenses oftheparty which wins: thecostofbeing represented orassisted, theparty’s
disbursements andother expenses exceeding SwF50,lossofearnings ifitexceeds aday’searnings
where thesuccessful party’sfinancial circumstances aremodest (Article 8oftheOrdinance onCosts
andCompensation inrespect ofAdministrative Procedures).
Thecostofanappeal totheFederal Appeals Committee forintellectual property questions
isSwF1,000 toSwF4,000, depending onthesubject oftheappeal andthecomplexity ofthe
proceedings.
Withregard tothecostofproceedings under theauspices oftheCustoms Authorities, seethe
reply toquestion 17.
Length: Forproceedings opposing trademarks, itisdifficult togiveaprecise average figure,
asthelength depends verymuch onthecomplexity ofthecase,thenumber ofexchanges ofdocuments,
extensions ofthetime-limits, thesuspensions ofproceedings andwhether ornotthere ismore than
onepartyopposing thetrademark. Forinstance, forasimple case(with asingle exchange ofdocuments
andonlythree extensions oftheperiods allowed forreplying), thelength willbebetween eight and
12months. Asageneral ruletheFederal Institute forIntellectual Property endeavours toensure that
theproceedings arecompleted swiftly.
AnappealtotheFederalAppealsCommitteeforintellectualpropertyquestionsagainstadecision
tohaveajudgment setaside cantakeonaverage eight to10months. Itshould bepointed outthat
aparty canatanytimeappeal tothesupervisory authority onthegrounds ofamiscarriage ofjustice
orunjustified delay against anauthority which, without good reason, refuses toactordelays taking
adecision (Article 70LPA). Theperiod oftimepermissible foranauthority todecide cannot be
determined intheabstract. Itdepends onanumber offactors, including thecomplexity ofthecase
andtheinterests atstake.IP/N/6/CHE/1
Page17
Provisional measures
(a) Judicial measures
10. Describe thetypes ofprovisional measures thatjudicial authorities mayorder, andthe
legal basis forsuchauthority.
10.1 Civil procedural law
Thefederal legislation concerning intellectual property governs theauthorities ’powers and
theconditions forordering provisional measures incivilproceedings. Itisaugmented bytheprovisions
ofArticles 28cto28foftheCCandtheprecedents established byFederal Court decisions.
Thevarious provisional measures arenotlisted bythelawinanexhaustive manner; thecourt
canandmustadapt themtotakeaccount ofthespecific characteristics ofthecaseinpoint. Ingeneral
theprovisional measures areconcerned essentially withguaranteeing thedefactoordejuresituation
orsafeguarding thelegitimate interests oftheparties totheproceedings, upuntilthefinaljudgment.
Withregard tointellectual property lawmention maybemade ofthefollowing provisional measures:
- Measurestoensurethattherelevantevidenceinconnectionwiththeallegedinfringement
ispreserved (e.g. Article 65(2) LDA; Article 59(2) LPM; Article 10(1) LTo;
Article 77(1) LBI; Article 28(1) LDMI; Article 14LCD; Article 28c(2),
subparagraph 2,CC);
- precautionary measures tomaintain theexisting defactosituation (e.g.Article 65(2)
LDA; Article 59(2) LPM; Article 28(1) LDMI; Article 10(1) LTo; Article 77(1)
LBI; Article 14LCD; Article 28c(2), subparagraph 1,CC);
- measures pursuant toacontractual obligation toensure onaprovisional basis the
exercising oftheclaims toprevent orputanendtothedisturbance (e.g.Article 65(2)
LDA; Article 59(2) LPM; Article 10(1) LTo; Article 28(1) LDMI; Article 77(1)
LBI);
- measures toidentify thesource ofarticles made orreleased forcirculation unlawfully
ortoobtain aprecise description oftheprocesses allegedly applied illegally, ofthe
products allegedly counterfeited ormanufactured illegally andofthefacilities, tools,
etc.used intheir manufacture (e.g. Article 65(2) LDA; Article 59(2) LPM;
Article 28(1) LDMI; Article 10(1) LTo; Article 77(1) LBI).
10.2 Criminal procedural law
There aretwotypes ofprovisional measures incriminal proceedings: firstly, thejudicial and
police authorities areprompted totaketemporary measures toguarantee thatcircumstantial andother
evidence ispreserved and,secondly, theyareempowered toresort tocoercive orconstraining measures
toensure thatthesuspect ispresent throughout theproceedings andabove allthatthefinaldecision
isenforced. Thislatter power isparticularly important withregard tointellectual property; here,
theinvestigating judge mayinteraliaseize theallegedly counterfeit items andtheinstruments and
implements usedprincipally forcounterfeiting purposes (seeArticle 28(1) LDMI; conversely Article 72
LDA; Article 68LPM; Article 69LBI). Once theyhavebeencompleted, works ofarchitecture may
notbeconfiscated (Article 72LDA). Thejudicial authorities mayinparticular order theseizing of
allegedly counterfeit items orofinstruments andimplements usedmainly forcounterfeiting purposes
which theyconsider necessary todemonstrate thetruth ortoconfiscate (seeArticle 28(1) LDMI;IP/N/6/CHE/1
Page18
Article 65LPP). Eventhough theordering ofprovisional measures incriminal proceedings isgoverned
onlyunder theLDMI, thispossibility isnotconfined toindustrial designs. According totheFederal
Court thejudicial authorities mayorder provisional measures inallIPR-related criminal proceedings
inaccordance withthe“inmajore minus ”principle4.
11. Inwhat circumstances maysuchmeasures beordered inaudita altera parte?
Ingeneral, thejudge gives theopposing party theopportunity tobeheard: thisfundamental
principle stems fromArticle 4Cst.However, iftheimminence ofthedanger issuchthattheopposing
party cannot beheard, thejudge mayorder emergency measures subject toanapplication simply being
made (seeArticle 65(4) LDA; Article 10(1) LTo; Article 59(4) LPM; Article 77(3) LBI;Article 43(3)
LPOV; Article 28(3) LDMI; Article 14LCD; Article 28d(2) CC). Thispresupposes thatnotonly
arealltheconditions satisfied forthegranting oftheprovisional measures butalsothattheapplicant
demonstrates thatthelikely imminence ofthethreat ofinfringement issuch(“needforurgent action ”)
thatthereisnotimelefttoheartheopposing party. Thelatter mustbenotified assoonastheprovisional
measures havebeencarried out.
Incriminal proceedings thepolice authorities andtheinvestigating judge order theprovisional
measures which theyconsider necessary. Iftheperson inpossession oftheseized article isnotpresent
while itisactually being seized, hemustbenotified assoonastheprovisional measure hasbeencarried
out(Article 4CstandArticle 6CDEH).
12. Describe themain procedures fortheinitiation, ordering andmaintenance inforce of
provisional measures, inparticular relevant time-limits andsafeguards toprotect thelegitimate
interests ofthedefendant.
12.1 Civil procedural law
Themain procedures fortheinitiation, ordering andmaintenance inforce ofprovisional
measures, inparticular relevant time-limits andsafeguards toprotect thelegitimate interests ofthe
defendant, aregoverned forthemostpartbythefederal intellectual property laws. Anyone wishing
toapply forprovisional measures mustdemonstrate thatitislikely thathisIPRisbeing orislikely
tobeinfringed andthatsuchinfringement islikely tocause himdamage which willbedifficult tomake
good andwhich canbeaverted onlybymeans ofprovisional measures (seeArticle 65(1) LDA;
Article 10(1) LTo; Article 59(1) LPM; Article 43(2) LPOV; Article 77(2) LBI; Article 14LCD;
Article 17(2) LCart; Article 28c(1) CC;thislastprovision alsoapplies mutatis mutandis toindustrial
designs). Furthermore, anyprovisional measure tosome extent implies asense ofurgency.
Asageneral rulethecourt gives theopposing party theopportunity tobeheard (Article 65(4)
LDA; Article 10(1) LTo; Article 59(4) LPM; Article 28(3) LDMI; Article 77(3) LBI; Article 43(3)
LPOV; Article 14LCD; Article 17(2) LCart; Article 28d(1) CC). Intheevent ofemergency measures
(seereplytoquestion 11),theopposing partymustbenotified assoonasthemeasures havebeencarried
out.
Theprovisional measures guarantee thattheapplicant ’srights willbeprovisionally protected
fortheduration oftheproceedings. However, theymayalready beapplied forbefore theaction is
brought. Ifneedbe,thecourt, when itallows theapplication, willgranttheapplicant aperiod of30days
maximum tobring theaction, informing himthattheprovisional measures willlapse ifhefailstoact
4According tothe“inmajore minus ”principle thejudge mayconfiscate articles made orusedillegally as
wellasinstruments, tools andother resources intended mainly fortheir manufacture. Seereply 5.3. Hemay
alsoorder theprovisional seizure ofthese articles.IP/N/6/CHE/1
Page19
within thatperiod (Article 65(4) LDA; Article 10(1) LTo; Article 59(4) LPM; Article 28(4) LMDI;
Article 77(4) LBI; Article 14LCD; Article 17(2) LCart; Article 28e(2) CC)5.Itisforcantonal
procedural lawtodetermine inwhatformtheaction onthemerits istobebrought. Iftheprovisional
measures areordered during theproceedings, theynormally losetheirvalidity bythetimethefinal
decision enters intoforceatthelatest. Thejudge may,however, order alimited extension ofthevalidity
oftheprovisional measures, forexample thatanotebemade inthetrademarks register thattheholder ’s
power ofalienation islimited untiltheregistration ofthemark isdefinitively expunged. Thejudge
always hastheoption, ontherequisition oftheparties, toreverse, modify orrestrict theprovisional
measures hehasordered ifthere isnolonger anyneedforurgent action orifthecircumstances have
changed.
Theapplicant isrequired tocompensate forthedamage caused totheopposing party ifthe
application forprovisional measures proves tohavebeenwithout foundation (seereply toquestion 7).
Iftheopposing party islikely tosuffer harm asaresult, thejudge maycompel theapplicant toprovide
guarantees before ordering theprovisional measure andwillmake theenforcement ofhisdecision
concerning aprovisional measure dependent upon thatbeing done(Article 65(4) LDA; Article 10(1)
LTo; Article 59(4) LPM; Article 28(2) LDMI; Article 79(1) LBI; Article 44(1) LPOV; Article 14
LCD; Article 17(2) LCart; Article 28d(3) CC).
12.2 Criminal procedural law
Itisforthejudicial authorities (theinvestigating judge andthecourt) toorder thenecessary
provisional measures.
Itisalsofortheinvestigating judge tolifttheseizure assoonastheconditions which ledto
thismeasure being taken arenolonger satisfied orhavechanged, forexample assoonasthepurpose
forwhich itwasordered nolonger justifies thisprovisional measure being taken. Thefateoftheitems
andassets thatwere seized must bedetermined inthefinaljudgment atthelatest.
Adistinction should bemade between probatory seizure, which isintended tofurnish evidence
orproof, andpreventive attachment (seereply 10.2). Probatory seizure maybeordered onlyifthe
items tobesequestrated arelikely tobedirectly orindirectly connected with anIPRinfringement.
Theitems must beofusefordemonstrating thetruth inorder tobeabletobeseized. Preventive
attachment ispossible onlyiftheitems tobeseized areclosely connected withaspecific infringement.
Inaddition, theconfiscated items mustbesufficiently likely tobejeopardized infuture. Bothprobatory
seizure andpreventive attachment arealsosubject totheproportionality rule. Thisrulerequires the
judge toresort tolessincisive measures, suchasthedrawing-up ofaninventory orthetaking of
photographs.
Before ordering provisional measures, the(investigating) judge willheartheopposing party;
ifthere isaneedforurgent action hemaytakeemergency measures beforehand. Inthiscasethe
opposing party willbenotified assoonasthemeasures havebeencarried out(seeArticle 28(3) LDMI).
Ifneedbethe(investigating) judge, when heallows theapplication, willgrant theapplicant
aperiod of30daysmaximum tobring theaction, informing himthatthemeasures ordered willlapse
ifhefailstoactwithin thatperiod (seeArticle 28(4) LDMI). Adetailed inventory isdrawn upof
theitems thathavebeensequestered orputinasafeplace. Theinterested parties receive acopy(see
Article 70LPP). Throughout Switzerland, theprovisional measures maybethesubject ofajudicial
5Thecurrent Federal LawontheProtection ofNew Plant Varieties provides foraperiod of60days. This
period willbereduced to30days inthedraft amendment atpresent being prepared.IP/N/6/CHE/1
Page20
review atcantonal level onthegrounds thatseizure isarestriction ofownership asguaranteed by
Article 22boftheConstitution. Anappeal doesnot,however, prevent theprovisional measure from
continuing toexistuntilthecourt ofappeal approves theappeal.
With regard totheliability ofthe(investigating) judges intheevent ofseizures wrongfully
ordered, seethereply toquestion 7.
Thejudge mayrefuse toaward compensation ormayreduce itiftheapplicant hasnotbeen
negligent orhasbeenonlyslightly negligent. Theaction forcompensation fortheinjury maybebrought
before thecourt which ordered theprovisional measures. Theguarantees provided bytheapplicant
arereturned ifthejudge establishes thattheopposing partywillnotdemand compensation fortheinjury.
Ifneedbe,thejudge laysdown aperiod within which action mustbetaken, notifying theopposing
party thatifitdoesnotactwithin thatperiod, theguarantees willbereturned totheapplicant (see,
forinstance, Article 28fCC; Article 28aLDMI; Article 80(3) LBI).
13. What, under normal circumstances, isthelength andcostofproceedings?
Nodataareavailable ontheusual length andcostofproceedings concerning theprovisional
judicial measures pertaining tointellectual property rights.
Ingeneral, itcanbesaidthatthelength oftheproceedings is,bytheverynature ofthemeasures,
fairly short. Theproceedings areonlysummary (“Summarverfahren ”);thejudge whoinvestigates
theproceedings decides alone andcertain conditions which mustbesatisfied inordinary proceedings
arenotrequired (forexample, theimminence ofthedanger doesnothavetobeproven butonlymade
toappear plausible). Thelength alsodepends onthekindofprovisional measures requested andthe
period ofurgency.
Thecostoftheproceedings depends onthecomplexity oftheparticular caseandtheamount
involved inthedispute; italsovaries from onecanton toanother.
(b) Administrative measures
14. Reply totheabove questions inrelation toanyadministrative provisional measures.
TheFederal Institute forIntellectual Property doesnotorder provisional measures. Itcannot,
either onitsowninitiative orattherequest ofaparty, provisionally cancel aregistration, since this
would notbecompatible withthepurpose oftheIPRregisters (public confidence indocuments). A
party which wishes toobtain provisional measures must request them from thejudicial authorities.
Inprinciple, within theframework oftheopposition procedure, theAppeals Committee for
intellectual property questions may, afterreceiving theappeal document, order provisional measures,
onitsowninitiative orattherequest ofaparty, provided thatsuchmeasures arenecessary inorder
tomaintain provisionally intact adejureordefacto situation (seeArticle 56LPA). However, this
possibility hasremained theoretical where IPRsareconcerned since thedejureordefacto situation
isnotaffected bytheInstitute ’sdecision ifaparty haslodged anappeal against thatdecision (seereply
toquestion 9.1).
Theonlymeasure which could becompared toapre-provisional measure (i.e.inaudita altera
parte)isthatwhich canbetaken bytheCustoms Authorities (seebelow replies toquestions 15etseq.).IP/N/6/CHE/1
Page21
Special requirements related toborder measures
15. Indicate forwhich goods itispossible toapply forthesuspension bythecustoms authorities
oftherelease intofreecirculation, inparticular whether these procedures areavailable alsoin
respect ofgoods which involve infringements ofintellectual property rights other thancounterfeit
trademark orpirated copyright goods asdefined intheTRIPS Agreement (footnote toArticle 51).
Specify, together with relevant criteria, anyimports excluded from theapplication ofsuch
procedures (such asgoods from another member ofacustoms union, goods intransit ordeminimis
imports). Dotheprocedures apply toimports ofgoods putonthemarket inanother country
byorwiththeconsent oftheright holder andtogoods destined forexportation?
Arequest maybemade foraction bytheCustoms Authorities iftheimportation orexportation
ofgoods whose distribution would contravene thelegislation applicable isimminent.
Inadditiontothegoodsreferredtoinfootnote14concerningArticle51oftheTRIPSAgreement,
Swiss lawalsoprovides forborder measures inrespect ofgoods infringing therights inrelation to
geographical indications, industrial designs andthetopographies ofintegrated circuits. These border
measures arespecifically governed bythefollowing provisions:
- Articles 75to77oftheLDA andArticles 18to21oftheODAu;
- Article 12(which refers back toArticles 75to77oftheLDA) oftheLToand
Articles 16to1oftheOTo;
- Articles 70to72oftheLPM andArticles 54to57oftheOPM;
- Articles 33ato33coftheLDMI andArticles 29to29coftheODMI;
- Articles 1to5andAnnex 1(tariff) totheRegulation onCharges levied bytheCustoms
Authorities.
Theprocedure isnotconfined togoods imported orexported across theSwiss customs line
butapplies alsotogoods stored inaSwiss customs warehouse .Itis,however, ruled outforgoods
intransit.
Withregard totrademarks, theCustoms Authorities mayrefuse arequest forittotakeaction
ifitemerges thatsuchrequest isintended toprevent parallel imports.
16. Provide adescription ofthemain elements oftheprocedures relating tothesuspension
oftherelease ofgoods bycustoms authorities, inparticular thecompetent authorities (Article 51),
therequirements foranapplication (Article 52)andvarious requirements related totheduration
ofsuspension (Article 55). How have Articles 53(security orequivalent assurance),
56(indemnification oftheimporter andoftheowner ofthegoods) and57(right ofinspection
andinformation) been implemented?
With regard totherequirements which must bemetbyanapplication forsuspension ofthe
release ofgoods, theCustoms Authorities provide interested groups withinstructions ontheprocedure
tobefollowed. Onthebasis oftheLPM, forinstance, therequest mustcontain certain information:
dataonthetrademark holder, theperson entitled touseitorhisrepresentative, acopyoftheregistration
certificate, (strong) circumstantial evidence which suggests thatproducts illegally bearing thetrademark
ortheindication ofsource arebeing imported, exported orstored, aprecise description ofthegoods,
ifpossible details ofthecounterfeiting methods, thecharacteristics ofthecounterfeit orimitated goods,IP/N/6/CHE/1
Page22
thefirms involved (carrier, importer, etc.)andtheconsignments allegedly containing illegal products.
Inurgent cases thewritten request may, inexceptional circumstances, bepresented directly
tothecustoms office atwhich illegally named products aresupposedly being cleared (see,forinstance,
Article 55(1) OPM).
Forrequests concerning fields suchas:
- Copyright andneighbouring (related) rights,
- topographies ofsemi-conductor elements,
- industrial designs,
these provisions apply mutatis mutandis .
TheCustoms Authorities holdthegoods foruptotenworking daysasfrom thedateof
notification, toenable theapplicant toobtain provisional measures. Indulysubstantiated cases, the
Customs Authorities mayholdthegoods foramaximum ofafurther tenworking days(Article 77(2)
and(2a)LDA; Article 12LTo; Article 72(2) and(2a)LPM; Article 33c(2) and(3)LDMI). Ifit
isestablished, priortotheexpiry ofthesetime-limits, thattheapplicant isunable toobtain provisional
measures,theproductsarereleasedimmediately(Article20(3)ODAu;Article18(3)OTo;Article56(3)
OPM; Article 29b(3) ODMI).
Inorder tomeet anyrequest fordamages from third parties, theCustoms Authorities may
requireanappropriateguaranteefromtheapplicant(Article77(2b)LDA;Article12LTo;Article72(2b)
LPM; Article 33c(4) LDMI).
Theapplicant isauthorized toverify thegoods thatarebeing held. Theperson entitled todispose
ofthegoods mayalsotakepartinthisverification (Article 20(2) ODAu; Article 18(2) OTo;
Article 56(2) OPM; Article 29b(2) ODMI).
17. Describe provisions regarding thelength andcostofproceedings. Provide anyavailable
dataontheactual duration ofproceedings andtheir cost. How longisthevalidity ofdecisions
bythecompetent authorities forthesuspension oftherelease ofgoods intofreecirculation?
Theapplication isnormally valid fortwoyears unless made forashorter period. Itmaybe
renewed. AfeeofSwF120ischarged fortheprocessing ofapplications.
TheCustoms Authorities holdthegoods inquestion foruptotenworking daysfromthedate
ofthenotification. Theapplicant must takeadvantage ofthisperiod toobtain from theciviljudge
provisional measures, without which thegoods arereleased immediately. Indulysubstantiated cases
theCustoms Authorities mayholdthegoods forafurther tendaysmaximum.
18. Arecompetent authorities required toactupon their owninitiative and,ifso,inwhat
circumstances? Arethere anyspecial provisions applicable toexofficio action?
TheCustoms Authorities havetheauthority todraw exofficio theattention oftheregistered
holder tocertain consignments which areregarded assuspect (Article 75LDA; Article 12LTo;
Article 70LPM; Article 33aLDMI). Thispower isimportant, asitremoves amajor obstacle, namely
professional secrecy, which, untiltheprovisions referred toentered intoforce, prevented thecustoms
authorities fromreporting consignments which obviously contained counterfeit goods. However, suchIP/N/6/CHE/1
Page23
consignments arenotdetained asamatter ofcourse. There isnosystematic attempt bythecustoms
authorities tolookforsuchconsignments.
19. Describe theremedies thatthecompetent authorities havetheauthority toorder andany
criteria regulating their use.
TheCustoms Authorities donothaveauthority towithdraw fromcirculation orautomatically
destroy goods which contravene theapplicable law,since Swiss legislation doesnotcontain anybasis
forsuchmeasures bythecustoms authorities. Forthiskindofremedy, seethereplies toquestion 5
above (civil judicial proceedings).
Criminal procedures
Withregard toIPRinfringements, theproceedings andpassing ofjudgment insofar asoffences
under criminal lawareconcerned areamatter forthecantonal authorities (seeArticle 73(1) LDA;
Article 69LPM; Article 27(1) LDMC; Article 85(1) LBI; Article 51LPOV; Article 27(1) LCD).
Each canton hasacodeofcriminal lawprocedure which isapplied subject toArticle 365(2)
CPandArticles247etseq.oftheFederalLawonCriminalLawProcedure,unlessthespecialintellectual
property lawscontain specific provisions.
20. Specify thecourts which have jurisdiction overcriminal actsofinfringement ofIPRs.
20.1 Eachcantondesignatesforthewholeofitsterritorytheauthoritiesresponsiblefortheproceedings
andpassing ofjudgment incases ofinfringement (seeArticle 345(1) CP). Ifthereisabreach offederal
law,appeals onapoint oflawagainst thecantonal judgments maybemade totheFederal Court of
Appeal (Article 269(1) LPP).
20.2 Thecompetent authority forconducting theproceedings andpassing judgment onanIPR
infringement isthatoftheplace inwhich theperpetrator acted. Ifonlytheplace inwhich theresult
occurred isinSwitzerland, thecompetent authority istheonewhich hasjurisdiction overthatplace
(seeArticle 346(1) CP). With regard topatents andindustrial designs, thelawallows theplaintiff
tochoose between theplace inwhich theperpetrator acted andthatinwhich theresult occurred (see
Article 84(1) LBI; Article 27(1) LDMI). Iftheperpetrator acted ortheresult occurred indifferent
places, thecompetent authority isthatoftheplace inwhich thefirstinvestigation wasinitiated (see
Article 346(2) CP;Article 84(1) LBI; Article 27(2) LDMI). Iftheinfringement wascommitted abroad
oritisnotpossible todetermine where itwascommitted, thecompetent authority isthatoftheplace
inwhich theperpetrator oftheinfringement resides (seeArticle 348(1) CP).
21. Inrespect ofwhich infringements ofwhich intellectual property rights arecriminal
procedures andpenalties available?
Swiss lawprovides forcriminal lawprotection against infringements ofallIPRsandnotonly
against thecounterfeiting oftrademarks andcopyright piracy, asprovided forinArticle 61oftheTRIPS
Agreement. Criminal procedures andpenalties areavailable inrespect ofthefollowing infringements:
- According toArticles 67etseq.and70LDA thefollowing offences arepunishable:
intentionally andunlawfully using awork under afalsename oronewhich isdifferent
from thatdecided onbytheperson responsible forthework; divulging awork;
modifying awork; using awork tocreate aderivative work; making copies ofawork,
irrespective ofthetechnique used; offering tothepublic, disposing oforinsome other
wayputting intocirculation copies ofawork; reciting, representing orperformingIP/N/6/CHE/1
Page24
awork, directly orirrespective ofthetechnique used, orshowing orplaying itina
placeotherthanthatinwhich itwaspresented; broadcasting aworkbyradio, television
orsimilar means, either byradio relay, cable orother conductors orretransmitting
itbytechnical means theuseofwhich doesnotfallwithin theremit oftheoriginal
broadcasting authority; showing orplaying abroadcast work orarepeat; refusing
todeclare tothecompetent authorities thesource ofthecopies ofworks inthe
possession oftheperson concerned which weremade orputintocirculation unlawfully;
renting outsoftware: omitting tomention, inthose casesprescribed bylaw(Articles 25
and28),thesource usedand,ifsodesignated therein, theauthor; asserting copyright
themanagement ofwhich isplaced under federal supervision (seeArticle 40LDA).
- According toArticles 69etseq.LDA thefollowing offences arepunishable:
intentionally andunlawfully broadcasting byradio, television orsimilar means orby
radio relay, cable orother conductors aperformance byanentertainer; making sound
orvideo recordings ofaperformance orrecording itonsome other datamedium;
offering tothepublic, disposing oforinsome other wayputting intocirculation copies
ofaperformance; retransmitting aperformance bytechnical means theuseofwhich
doesnotfallwithin theremit oftheoriginal broadcasting body; showing orplaying
abroadcast orretransmitted performance; reproducing asound orvideo recording
oroffering tothepublic, disposing oforinsome other wayputting intocirculation
thereproduced copies; retransmitting abroadcast; making sound orvideo recordings
ofabroadcast orrecording itonsome other datamedium; reproducing abroadcast
recorded onasound recording, video recording oranother datamedium or,insome
other way,putting intocirculation suchcopies; refusing todeclare tothecompetent
authoritiesthesourceofamediumonwhichaperformanceprotectedunderneighbouring
rights pursuant toArticles 33,36or37oftheLDA isrecorded andwhich hasbeen
made orputintocirculation unlawfully andisinthepossession oftheperson concerned.
- According toArticle 11oftheLTothefollowing offences arepunishable: intentionally
andunlawfully copying atopography, irrespective ofthemeans usedandtheform
which thecopy takes; offering tothepublic, disposing of,renting out,lending or
putting intocirculation insome other wayatopography orimporting itforsuch
purposes; refusing todeclare tothecompetent authorities thesource oftheitems which
wereproduced orputintocirculation illegally andwhich areinthepossession ofthe
person concerned.
- According toArticles 61etseq.oftheLPM thefollowing offences arepunishable:
intentionally infringing someone else’srights totrademarks, byusurping, counterfeiting
orcopying those trademarks orusing theusurped, counterfeit orcopied trademarks
toofferproducts orputthemintocirculation, offerorprovide services orforadvertising
purposes; refusing tostatethesource oftheitems onwhich ausurped, counterfeit
orcopied trademark hasbeenaffixed andwhich areinthepossession oftheperson
concerned; illegally naming products orservices withthetrademark ofathirdparty
withaview todeceiving others, thusleading them tobelieve thattheproducts or
services areoriginal; offering orputting intocirculation asoriginals products illegally
named using athird party’strademark; offering orproviding asoriginals services
named using athirdparty’strademark; importing, exporting orstoring products which
theperson concerned knew would beoffered orputintocirculation illegally, witha
viewtodeception; using aguarantee mark oracollective mark insuchawayasto
contravene theprovisions oftheregulation.IP/N/6/CHE/1
Page25
- According toArticles 64etseq.oftheLPM thefollowing offences arepunishable:
intentionally using aninaccurate indication ofsource ordesignation oforigin; creating
ariskofdeception byusing aname, address ortrademark inconnection withproducts
orservices from another source; contravening therequirements relating tothe
manufacturer ’sidentification mark.
- AccordingtoArticle112boftheLawonAgriculturethefollowingoffenceispunishable:
intentionally using, illegally, anappellation oforigin oraprotected geographical
indication (i.e.onewhich hasbeenregistered inrespect ofagricultural andprocessed
agricultural products).
- According toArticles 24etseq.oftheLDMI thefollowing offences arepunishable:
intentionally andunlawfully counterfeiting aregistered design orcopying itinsuch
awaythatthegenuine product canonlybedistinguished fromthecounterfeit product
aftercareful examination: selling, putting upforsaleorbringing intocirculation or
importing intoSwitzerland counterfeit orillegally copied articles; colluding inthe
offences referred toorencouraging orfacilitating theperpetration ofthose offences;
refusing todeclare tothecompetent authority thesource ofarticles inone’spossession
which havebeencounterfeited orcopied; wrongfully incorporating particulars inone’s
commercial documents, advertisements orproducts which leadpeople tobelieve that
adesign hasbeenregistered under theLDMI.
- According toArticles 66and81etseq.oftheLBIthefollowing offences arepunishable:
intentionally andunlawfully using apatented invention (copying isregarded asusing);
refusing todeclare tothecompetent authority thesource oftheproducts inone’s
possession which havebeenmanufactured illegally; removing thepatent mark ona
product oritspackaging without theconsent ofthepatent holder orlicensee; incitement
tocommit oneoftheactsreferred to,collaborating in,encouraging orfacilitating the
perpetration ofsuch acts; putting upforsaleorbringing intocirculation one’s
commercial documents, advertisements ofanykind, products orgoods bearing
particulars designed toleadpeople tobelieve, wrongly, thattheproducts orgoods are
protected bytheLBI.
- According toArticles 48etseq.oftheLPOV thefollowing offences arepunishable:
intentionally andunlawfully producing forcommercial purposes material forthe
propagation ofaprotected variety, offering thismaterial forsaleormaking abusiness
outofselling it;continuously using material forthepropagation ofaprotected variety
toproduce material forpropagating anewvariety; using plants orpartsofplants of
aprotected variety which areregularly offered forsaleforpurposes other than
propagationinordertoproduceprofessionallyornamentalplantsorcutflowers;making
abusiness outofselling ornamental plants orcutflowers ofspecies inrespect ofwhich
theprotection hasbeenwidened toinclude themarketed product; making statements
inadvertising, inone’sbusiness documents orwhen marketing products which may
leadpeople tobelieve, wrongly, thattheproduct inquestion isprotected; omitting
tousethename ofthevariety ifmaking abusiness outofselling thematerial for
propagatingaprotectedvariety;usinginrespectofanothervarietyofthesamebotanical
species orasimilar species inone’sbusiness activities thevarietal name ofaprotected
variety oraname leading toconfusion withthatname; infringing inanyother way
theLPOV ortherelevant implementing requirements.
- According toArticle 23oftheLCD thefollowing offence ispunishable: intentionally
engaging inunfair competition within themeaning ofArticle 3oftheLCD (unfairIP/N/6/CHE/1
Page26
advertising andsales techniques andother illegal practices), Article 4oftheLCD
(incitement tobreach orterminate acontract), Article 5oftheLCD (using something
promisedinanother’scontract)orArticle6oftheLCD(infringingindustrialorbusiness
secrets).
- According toArticle 162oftheCPthefollowing offence ispunishable: disclosing
anindustrial orcommercial secret which onewasunder astatutory orcontractual
obligation tokeep; thesame applies tousing suchdisclosure forone’sownbenefit
orthebenefit ofathirdparty.
- According toArticle 320oftheCPthefollowing offence ispunishable: disclosing
asecret confided tooneinone’scapacity asamember ofanauthority orasanofficial
orwhich hascome toone’snotice asaresult ofone’soffice oremployment (N.B. This
general ruleofthecriminal codeisalsoreflected innumerous intellectual property
lawsandregulations. SeeSwitzerland ’sreply inthecontext ofthereview oflegislation
onundisclosed information during theMay1997 session).
22. Which public authorities areresponsible forinitiating criminal proceedings? Arethey
required todothisontheir owninitiative and/or inresponse tocomplaints?
22.1 Withregard toIPRinfringements theproceedings andpassing ofjudgment concerning breaches
ofcriminal lawareamatter forthecantonal authorities (seeArticle 73(1) LDA; Article 69LPM;
Article 27(1) LDMC; Article 85(1) LBI; Article 51LPOV; Article 27(1) LCD). Inallcantons it
isthepolice authorities andthepublic prosecutors which areresponsible forinitiating criminal
proceedings. Thepublic prosecutors direct thepolice investigations.
22.2 Under intellectual property lawcriminal proceedings require, inmostcases, acomplaint from
theinjured party (Articles 67(1), 68and69(1) LDA; Article 11(1) LTo; Article 61(1) and(2),62(1)
and(3),63(1) and(2)and64(1) LPM; Article 81LBI; Article 27(1) LDMI; Article 48,
subparagraph 2,LPOV; Article 23LCD; Article 162LP). However, iftheperpetrator oftheoffence
isacting inaprofessional capacity insome cases proceedings aretaken asamatter ofcourse
(Article 67(2), Article 69(2) LDA; Article 11(2) LTo; Article 61(3), 62(2), 63(4) and64(2) LPM).
23. Doprivate persons have standing toinitiate criminal proceedings and,ifso,who?
Under intellectual property lawcriminal proceedings require, inmostcases, acomplaint from
theinjured party (seereply 22.2). Consequently, onlyprivate individuals areabletoinitiate criminal
proceedings. Anyinjured person maylodge acomplaint. Iftheinjured party doesnotexercise civil
rights, hislegalrepresentative willbeentitled tolodge acomplaint. Ifheisinthecareofaguardian,
itisthetutelary authority which willbeentitled tolodge acomplaint. Iftheinjured party isoverthe
ageof18atleastandcapable ofunderstanding, hewillalsobeentitled tolodge acomplaint. Ifhe
dieswithout lodging acomplaint orhaving expressly renounced therighttodoso,hisrightwillpass
toeachofhisclose relatives (seeArticle 28CP).
Where proceedings aretaken against aninfringement asamatter ofcourse, theinjured party
maysuefordamages.
24. Specify, bycategory ofIPRandtypeofinfringement where necessary, thepenalties and
other remedies thatmaybeimposed.IP/N/6/CHE/1
Page27
Swiss lawprovides forthefollowing penalties:
- Forbreachofcopyright(Article67LDA),forbreachofaneighbouringright(Article69
LDA) andforinfringement oftheprovisions regarding theprotection oftopographies
(Article 11LTo): imprisonment foruptooneyearorafineofuptoSwF40,000.
Iftheperpetrator oftheoffence isacting inaprofessional capacity, thepenalty will
beimprisonment foruptothree years andafineofuptoSwF100,000;
- forunlawfully exercising aright (Article 70LDA): imprisonment foruptothree
months orafineofuptoSwF40,000;
- forintentionally omitting tomention thesource usedbywhoever islegally required
todosoorbytheauthor ifheisdesignated todoso(Article 68LDA): afineofup
toSwF40,000;
- forfraudulent useofatrademark (Article 62LPM): imprisonment foruptothree
years orafineofuptoSwF100,000. Iftheperpetrator oftheoffence isacting in
aprofessional capacity, thepenalty willbeimprisonment foruptofiveyears anda
fineofuptoSwF100,000;
- forinfringement oftherighttoatrademark (Article 61LPM) andforimproperly using
aguarantee orcollective mark (Article 63LPM): imprisonment ofuptooneyear
orafineofuptoSwF100,000. Iftheperpetrator oftheoffence isacting ina
professional capacity, thepenalty willbeimprisonment foruptothree years anda
fineofuptoSwF100,000;
- forimporting, exporting orstoring products which areunlawfully offered forsaleor
brought intocirculation withaview todeceiving others through one’strademark
(Article 62(3) LPM): imprisonment foruptothree months orafineofupto
SwF20,000;
- forusing incorrect indications ofsource (Article 64LPM): imprisonment forupto
oneyearorafineofuptoSwF100,000. Iftheperpetrator oftheoffence isacting
inaprofessional capacity, thepenalty willbeimprisonment foruptothree years and
afineofuptoSwF100,000;
- forillegal useofaprotected appellation oforigin orgeographical indication:
imprisonment foruptooneyearorafineofuptoSwF100,000 (Article 112bofthe
lawonagriculture);
- forinfringements relating totheproducer ’sidentification mark (Article 65LPM):
afineofuptoSwF20,000;
- forinfringingtheprovisionsgoverningtheprotectionofindustrialdesigns(seeArticle24
LDMI): imprisonment ofuptooneyearorafineofuptoSwF100,000 (Article 25
LDMI). Anyone whohaswrongfully incorporated particulars inhiscommercial
documents, advertisements orproducts which leadpeople tobelieve thatadesign has
beenregistered under theLDMI willbefined uptoSwF40,000 (Article 31LDMI);
- forinfringing theprovisions governing theprotection oftherights toapatented
invention (seeArticle 66LBI): imprisonment ofuptooneyearorafineofupto
SwF100,000(Article81(1)LBI).AnyonewhooffersforsaleorbringsintocirculationIP/N/6/CHE/1
Page28
hiscommercial documents, advertisements ofanykind, products orgoods bearing
particulars which leadpeople tobelieve, wrongly, thattheproducts orgoods are
protected bytheLBIwillbefined uptoSwF2,000 (Article 82(2) LBI);
- forinfringement oftheprovisions regarding theprotection ofplantvarieties (Article 48
LPOV): imprisonment foruptooneyearorafineofuptoSwF40,000;
- formisleading advertising andother offences (Article 49LPOV): afineofupto
SwF40,000;
- forunfair competition (Article 23LCD): imprisonment ofuptothree years orafine
ofuptoSwF100,000.
Swiss lawalsoprovides forother remedies. Forinstance:
- Ajudge mayorder theseizure orconfiscation ofitems andinstruments which have
beenorwere tobeusedincommitting anIPRinfringement orwhich aretheresult
ofaninfringementandoftoolsandotherresourcesintendedprimarilyformanufacturing
these products (conversely Article 58CP;Article 68LPM; conversely Article 72
LDA; Article 29(1) LDMI; Article 69(1) LBI; Article 50LPOV). Ajudge may
order thattheconfiscated items orproducts berendered unfitforuseordestroyed
(Article 58(2) CP;Article 29(2) LDMI; Article 69(1) LBI). Once theyhavebeen
completed, works ofarchitecture maynotbeconfiscated;
- if,asaresult ofamisdemeanour orfelony, aperson suffers damage which isnot
covered byanyinsurance andtheoffender isnotexpected tomake goodthatdamage,
thejudge awards theinjured party, athisrequest, uptotheamount ofthedamage laid
down bythecourts orbyagreement withtheinjured party:
(a) theamount ofthefinepaidbytheconvicted person;
(b) theitems andassets which havebeenconfiscated ortheproceeds ofliquidating
them, afterdeduction ofexpenses;
(c) theclaims forcompensation;
(d) theamount oftheprecautionary guarantee (Article 60CP);
- ifthepublic interest orthatoftheinjured party sorequires, thejudge mayorder the
publication ofthecriminal judgment inoneormore newspapers attheexpense ofthe
convicted person (seeArticle 61(1) CP;Article 30LDMI; Articles 70and82(2) LBI);
- where amisdemeanour orfelony hasbeencommitted while carrying out,subject to
official authorization, aprofessional, industrial orcommercial activity andtheoffender
has,because ofthisoffence, received acustodial sentence ofmore thanthree months,
thejudge may, ifthere isreason tofearfurther abuses, prohibit theconvicted person
fromcarrying outthatprofessional, industrial orcommercial activity foraperiod of
between sixmonths andfiveyears (Article 54(1) CP).
25. Describeprovisionsgoverningthelengthandanycostofproceedings.Provideanyavailable
dataontheactual duration ofproceedings andtheir cost, ifany.IP/N/6/CHE/1
Page29
Theapplication ofcriminal lawinintellectual property matters isexclusively amatter forthe
cantons.
Most codes ofprocedure stipulate onlythatthecourts areobliged toensure thattheproceedings
arenotprolonged unnecessarily. Furthermore, certain stages oftheproceedings mustbecompleted
within precise time-limits (butthese maydiffer from onecanton toanother). Mention should also
bemade oftheprinciple ofpromptness, deduced from Articles 4Cstand6CEDH, asaparticular
kindofformal miscarriage ofjustice andviolation oftherighttobegiven ahearing. Finally, according
toArticle 73CPthestatute oflimitations istenyears iftheoffence ispunishable byimprisonment
andfiveyears forallother offences. Thestatute oflimitations applying totheprincipal penalty prevails
overthatforancillary penalties.
Asforthecost,ifany,oftheproceedings, thisisgoverned bythegeneral provisions ofcantonal
criminal lawregarding expenses, costs andcompensation and,inparticular, theadvancing ofcourt
feesbytheState andofcertain expenses relating toexpert opinions bytheparties concerned. The
expenses andcosts arenormally borne bythelosing party.
Nostatistical dataareavailable ontheactual duration orcostoftheproceedings.