The Swiss Federal Supreme Court affirms interest in bringing an action for annulment with respect to a Central Attack under the Madrid System


Your contact

In its decision 4A_97/2020 of August 5, 2020, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court addressed the question of whether the interest in bringing an action for annulment concerning a basic trademark can be affirmed due to the legal consequences inherent to an approval of such claims under the institute of the so-called Central Attack.

National and international trademark application

On November 15, 2016, C. filed a trademark application for the signs “HMO” and “HM-O” with the Swiss Intellectual Property Institute (IPI). The IPI refused to register the first-mentioned trademark “HMO”, granted, however, protection for the sign “HM-O”.

Based on the Swiss trademark “HM-O”, C. applied for international trademark protection under the Madrid System (designated countries: Australia, Bahrain, Colombia, EU, Iran, Mexico, Oman, Philippines, Russia, Singapore and Vietnam). In 2017, the EU granted protection for the trademark “HM-O”.

Between 2016 and 2017, C. marketed food for infants that contained, among other substances, human milk oligosaccharides and referred to those products as “HMO” on various websites.

Provisional refusal of registration and opposition against trademark “HM-O”

On August 2, 2017, A. sent a letter to C. threatening to object to the trademark application regarding the acronym “HM-O” on the ground that the sign designated a class of compounds of “human milk oligosaccharides“, to which the industry usually refers to by the abbreviation “HMO“. A. mentioned that he had taken respective measures, inter alia, in the European Union and Switzerland to prevent and invalidate all applications and registrations of the sign “HM-O”.

Plaintiff’s action for annulment – Lack of interest?

On March 22, 2018, A. and B. (the plaintiffs) brought an action for annulment before the Cantonal Court of the Canton of Vaud against C. (the defendant). Defendant took the view that an action for annulment was inadmissible due to the lack of an interest in bringing proceedings since there was no competition between the parties in Switzerland.

With its judgment of November 1, 2019, the Cantonal Court agreed with the defendant and ruled that plaintiffs’ action was inadmissible. Plaintiffs filed appeal against this decision with the Swiss Federal Supreme Court and sought admission of the action for annulment, declaration of invalidity of the Swiss trademark “HM-O” and order for trademark cancellation by the IPI.

Central Attack under the Madrid System

The Federal Supreme Court held that, irrespective of any commercial activities within the Swiss territory, the plaintiffs had clear interest in bringing their action for annulment before a Swiss court. According to the Court, the plaintiffs’ action for annulment constitutes a so-called “Central Attack” under the Madrid System, which allows plaintiffs to invalidate trademark protection of the defendant’s trademark “HM-O” in all countries designated by the defendant in its international registration, obtained based on the Swiss basic trademark application (“HM-O”).

According to the trademark protection mechanism provided under the Madrid System, the international trademark registration always derives from a trademark registered at national level. This basic trademark allows trademark owners to designate additional countries in their international trademark registrations (i.e. members of the Madrid System), where respective owners intend to obtain additional trademark protection. Therefore, if a trademark owner has intention to expand protection for his trademark, such person has clear interest in applying the basic trademark in a country of origin under the Madrid Agreement and/or Madrid Protocol. The Madrid System, accordingly, serves to simplify the extension of the overall trademark protection. Therefore, Central Attacks serve as legal “counter-tool” to plaintiffs’ (facilitated) trademark application rights under the Madrid System.

The Federal Supreme Court concluded that even if plaintiffs would not market HMO-products in Switzerland, they would nevertheless have a factual interest in having the defendant’s Swiss basic trademark declared invalid before a Swiss court. This would be the only way such parties could benefit from the legal effects of a “Central Attack” as envisaged by the Madrid System.

Conclusion

The Federal Supreme Court took the opportunity to elaborate on the (legal) interest in bringing an action for annulment in the context of the so-called Central Attack. With regard to the admissibility of the action for annulment, the Court essentially affirmed the possibility of the existence of a sufficient interest – despite the lack of a competitive relationship between the parties within Switzerland – due to the ratio legis, i.e. the legal effects and the importance of a Central Attack under the Madrid System. The Court therefore took the opposite view to the lower court.

We agree with the Federal Supreme Court’s view in this case. A divergent opinion would unnecessarily dilute the instrument of the Central Attack under the Madrid System in the Swiss territory and would severely impair the effectiveness of this legal instrument in general. Furthermore, this would adversely affect litigating parties on Swiss territory.


Share post



most read


Highlights

MLL Meyerlustenberger Lachenal Froriep Ltd

MLL is one of the leading law firms in Switzerland with offices in Zurich, Geneva, Zug, Lausanne, London and Madrid. We advise our clients in all areas of business law and stand out in particular for our first-class industry expertise in technical-innovative specialist areas, but also in regulated industries.

MLL Meyerlustenberger Lachenal Froriep

Newsletter

Much is still unclear in relation to liability questions around AI tools.

Read our latest post about “Liability during the Lifecycle of an AI Tool” and download our white paper.

Show article.

Our Story

MLL is a leading Swiss law firm with a history that dates back to 1885. The firm has grown both organically and by means of strategic mergers, the latest of which took place on 1st July 2021 between Meyerlustenberger Lachenal and FRORIEP.

The merger establishes MLL, a combined new entity as one of the largest commercial law firms in Switzerland with 150 lawyers in four offices in Switzerland and two offices abroad, in London and Madrid serving clients seeking Swiss law advice.

Our firm has a strong international profile and brings together recognised leadership and expertise in all areas of law affecting commerce today, with a focus on high-tech, innovative and regulated sectors. 

About us

Publications

Click here for our latest publications

COVID-19

Read all our legal updates on the impact of COVID-19 for businesses.

COVID-19 Information

Job openings

Looking for a new challenge?

Our talented and ambitious teams are motivated by a common vision to succeed. We value open and straightforward communication accross all levels of the organisation in a supportive working environment.

Job openings

Firm News

Click here for our latest firm news.

Our Team

The regulatory and technological landscape continually require businesses to adapt and evolve.
Our 150+ lawyers are continuously innovating and striving for improvement in everything they do. We embrace new ideas and technologies, combining our wealth of expertise with creative thinking and diligence. With our hands-on approach, we implement viable solutions for the most complex legal challenges.

Our Team.

LexCast – the podcast series by MLL NexGen

Smart legal education on the go. The LexCast hosted by MLL NexGen provides legal insights in a short format that allows listeners to educate themselves on and about legal issues wherever they are and whenever they find the time.

Listen to our podcast series – stay tuned.

MLL on Social Media

Follow us on LinkedIn and Twitter.