Germany cancels agreement with Switzerland on the use of trademarks

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Cookies Settings

Germany cancels agreement with Switzerland on the use of trademarks

Sponsored by

maiwald-logo-cropped.PNG
koblenz-4131213.jpg

Owners of German trademarks who rely on their use in Switzerland to protect their mark must change their strategy immediately, as Susanna Heurung of Maiwald explains

Owners of German trademarks who use their trademarks only in Switzerland should now be careful. As of May 31 2022, Germany has terminated an 1892 agreement with Switzerland, under which owners of German trademarks could rely on use in Switzerland to count as a genuine use of their marks.

In both Germany and Switzerland, a trademark must be used for five years after registration or expiration of the opposition period. If it is not possible to prove that the trademark has been used genuinely, in the event of a dispute, the trademark can be cancelled. In this case, proceedings based on this trademark can be lost due to lack of use, without the courts or a patent office even examining further questions such as the likelihood of confusion.

In principle, use must take place in the territory in which the trademark is protected, i.e. for German trademarks in Germany.

The German-Swiss Agreement of 1892 created an exception in favour of the trademark owner, according to which the use of a German trademark in Switzerland, or the use of a Swiss trademark in Germany, was recognised as genuine use. Thus, it was previously possible to rely on use in Switzerland to prove that a German trademark had been used in a way that preserved the rights of the owner, and vice versa.

Ruling from the European Court of Justice

The European Court of Justice (CJEU) has now put an end to this. As early as 2013, the CJEU ruled that the use of a trademark in Switzerland was not suitable for proving its genuine use in Germany (C-445/12 - Rivella International v OHIM). However, according to the case law of the German Federal Court of Justice, the agreement remained in force.

In another judgment from 2020, in which Ferrari relied on a right-preserving use in Switzerland for the German territory in accordance with the agreement, the CJEU ruled that the 1892 Agreement was incompatible with EU law (C-720/18, C-721/18 - Ferrari SpA/DU). Germany therefore had to amend this situation, and has now complied with this obligation by terminating the agreement.

Owners of German trademarks that are only used in Switzerland must therefore immediately adapt to the changed situation. According to general opinion, the termination of the agreement does not apply retroactively. Acts of use in the other contracting country up to the date of termination of the agreement are therefore still considered to constitute genuine use.

However, the use of a German trademark in Switzerland after May 31 2022, can no longer be used to prove use of the trademark in Germany. Owners of German trademarks who have previously only used the trademark in Switzerland should therefore ensure from now on that they can also prove the use of their trademarks in Germany. If they fail to do so, proceedings based on these trademarks will be lost on the grounds of lack of use alone. Worse still, the trademarks concerned may even be cancelled.

The proof of use must allow determinations to be made as to the place, time, extent, and nature of the use of the trademark for the goods and services covered by it. It is advisable to provide precise documentation of the trademark use, showing the number of units sold, the turnover achieved, the advertising expenses incurred, and so on. This must be supported by appropriate documentation such as exemplary invoices, photographs of the products concerned and marked with the trademark, and advertising materials.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

McDermott Will & Schulte lawyers explore why the UPC is seeing rapid adoption by medtech for fast-moving disputes, while pharma and biotech take a cautious, selective approach over revocation risks
IP firms may be growing more comfortable with external capital, but uncertainty over who could ultimately own the business is complicating the investment pitch
The former Western District of Texas judge addresses perceptions of his courtroom, reveals what comes next as he returns to practice at A&O Shearman and explains why marathon running is ‘cathartic’
International Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition says it has been blocked from hosting its annual event in the city, ending a long tradition of holding the gathering in the days leading up to INTA’s flagship event
The ITC is a powerful tool for litigators, practitioners say, as the threat of an exclusion order on a critical tech component could mean disrupting the entire data centre's operations
Anna Toh plans to expand Rajah & Tann’s soft IP capabilities, leveraging its Southeast Asia network to support clients on cross-border portfolio management and commercial strategy
The Canadian boutique’s new IP lead says he wants to build a tech-enabled IP practice aimed at giving startups senior expertise away from the traditional ‘big law’ set-up
Qantm IP’s acquisition of Henry Goh & Co shows shifting attitudes towards private equity, with firms increasingly viewing external backing as a normal route to expansion rather than a source of concern
The firm’s involvement in prominent AI cases drew litigator Christian Mammen to join from Womble Bond Dickinson, as US firms continue to bolster AI-focused practices
Two judicial appointments confirmed in Paris and Mannheim, while cross-border injunctions and high-profile procedural rulings keep major patent practices occupied
Gift this article