Swiss Federal Supreme Court on the Registrability of Pattern Marks – Clarification of Art. 2 lit. a TmPA

(BGE 4A_588/2024 of 27 March 2025)

The Swiss Federal Supreme Court ruled that a diamond-shaped pattern composed of stylised cornflowers is not eligible for trademark protection for various product classes.

Although a single cornflower had previously been registered as a trademark, the repeated pattern lacks the required inherent distinctiveness under Art. 2 lit. a of the Swiss Trademark Protection Act (TmPA). The Court held that the relevant public would perceive the pattern as a purely decorative element, and it did not sufficiently stand out from common industry designs. The claimant’s argument based on equal treatment and legitimate expectations in view of earlier registrations was rejected.

– Clarification of Art. 2 lit. a TmPA
(BGE 4A_588/2024 of 27 March 2025)

The Swiss Federal Supreme Court ruled that a diamond-shaped pattern composed of stylised cornflowers is not eligible for trademark protection for various product classes.

Although a single cornflower had previously been registered as a trademark, the repeated pattern lacks the required inherent distinctiveness under Art. 2 lit. a of the Swiss Trademark Protection Act (TmPA). The Court held that the relevant public would perceive the pattern as a purely decorative element, and it did not sufficiently stand out from common industry designs. The claimant’s argument based on equal treatment and legitimate expectations in view of earlier registrations was rejected.