On March 27, 2025 the Swiss Federal Supreme Court issued a major ruling in trademark law regarding the possibility—or rather, the impossibility—of registering a graphic pattern as a trademark in Switzerland. This decision is particularly relevant for businesses in the design, fashion, and textile sectors, as well as intellectual property law professionals.

I. Facts

The appellant had filed a repetitive pattern as a trademark in several classes, notably classes 9, 14, 16, 18, and 25 (reproduced below). While certain designations were accepted, a large portion was rejected by the IPI (Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property), on the grounds that the pattern belonged to the public domain under Article 2(a) of the Swiss Trademark Protection Act (TPA).

In support of its appeal, the company argued that it already held a registered trademark in Switzerland for an isolated element (a stylized flower reproduced below). It considered that repeating this element in a graphic tapestry form should not justify a refusal.

II. Legal analysis

The Federal Supreme Court rejected this argument. It emphasized that an element, even if distinctive in its isolated form, can lose its distinctiveness once repeated. Only if the repeated pattern sufficiently stands out from common usage in the relevant sector can it be protected as a distinctive sign.

In this case, the multiplication of the flower in a small format gives an overall decorative impression, resembling waves or lines, without any striking features. As such, the pattern will not be perceived by the relevant public as a commercial identification mark.

III. Key take-aways

This ruling provides valuable insights, particularly for Swiss and international businesses that use repetitive visual elements for commercial purposes. It highlights the following point

• A graphic element registered on its own does not guarantee that its repetition will also be eligible for protection.
• A pattern is often perceived as a mere decorative ornament without distinctive value, unless it clearly demonstrates individuality.
• Registering a pattern as a trademark requires a careful analysis, taking into account: (i) the expectations of the public in the relevant economic sector; (ii) how much it differs from common usage;the potential need to add verbal elements or graphic effects to increase its distinctiveness.
• Under Swiss law, a trademark protection strategy must incorporate the distinction between a distinctive sign and a graphic design.

Businesses looking to protect a visual pattern as a trademark in Switzerland must anticipate a high threshold of distinctiveness. The Swiss Federal Supreme Court’s ruling marks a significant jurisprudential milestone in this regard.

About the Author
Me Philippe Gilliéron is a lawyer based in Geneva at BMG Avocats (www.bmglaw.ch) specializing in intellectual property law, particularly in trademarks, designs, patents, and copyrights. He advises Swiss and international companies on strategies to protect intangible assets and represents his clients before Swiss courts and the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (IPI).

For any questions regarding the registration of a pattern as a trademark in Switzerland, contact Me Philippe Gilliéron, intellectual property lawyer in Geneva at: philippe.gillieron@bmglaw.ch.