IPI wins first Swissness court case against foreign company

According to the Bern Commercial Court, the fact that BDSwiss AG has an office in Zug is not sufficient evidence of ‘Swissness’. The global financial services provider could not prove that more activity takes place in Zug than just the emptying of its letterbox. The Bern Commercial Court therefore decided that BDSwiss AG must remove ‘Swiss’ from its name and the Swiss cross from its logo. The judgment of 26 August 2025 is final. BDSwiss AG has three months to change its branding.

Ruling against foreign company with registered office in Zug

BDSwiss AG is a financial services provider managed from Cyprus. Its main customer base is located in Germany. In Switzerland, a number of complaints were raised against BDSwiss AG, which led to the IPI contacting BDSwiss AG several times and eventually bringing an action before the court. Like trade associations and consumer protection associations, the IPI is entitled to file civil actions in Switzerland in cases of Swissness misuse and can also report criminal offences.

‘Swissness’ legislation

Specific rules in the Trade Mark Protection Act are the cornerstone of what is known as ‘Swissness’ legislation. Companies that want to use the indication of source ‘Switzerland’ must comply with the legally defined criteria and be able to prove this compliance in the event of a legal dispute. Companies can advertise their services as Swiss if they have a registered office in Switzerland and they are actually managed from Switzerland. The second condition is designed to prevent companies from claiming that a letterbox alone is a sufficient connection to Switzerland.

Impact of the judgment on ‘Swissness’ legislation

“The judgment marks the first time that Swissness criteria for advertising services have been confirmed in court,” says Felix Addor, Deputy Director General and General Counsel of the IPI. He adds that the requirements set out in Art. 49 of the Trade Mark Protection Act, which are part of ‘Swissness’ legislation, were interpreted strictly – for a company that provides financial services in Switzerland but has its headquarters abroad. “This makes the judgment particularly significant and sends an important message abroad.”

Defending the indication of source ‘Switzerland’ is the IPI’s task

Swiss products and services enjoy an exceptionally good reputation both domestically and abroad. Anyone who wants to benefit from the added value of Swissness by labelling goods or services with the Swiss cross or a designation such as ‘Swiss’ or ‘Made in Switzerland’ must comply with the legal provisions and provide proof if a case is brought to court. Companies that advertise their products or services without referring to Swissness do not need to fulfil the Swissness criteria. They can also create added value without having to relinquish Switzerland as a manufacturing location.

The greater the trust consumers have in the guaranteed origin and quality of a product or service, such as watches, chocolate or banking services, the greater the risk of wrongful use by free riders. Such profiteers advertise their products and/or services as being Swiss even though they do not fulfil the legal criteria.

The IPI can report criminal offences in the name of the Swiss Confederation or bring a civil action. Criminal offences can also be reported by trade and consumer protection associations, which play a key role in enforcement. They can report a case of wrongful use to the authority responsible or bring a civil action. On average, the IPI intervenes in 370 cases of Swissness misuse each year.