Statistical Country Profiles: Switzerland.
https://www.wipo.int/ipstats/en/statistics/country_profile/profile.jsp?code=CH
Background
The diversity of national systems and the reluctance on the part of practitioners, national administrations and judiciaries to unify procedures may in the medium or long run lead to disguised trade barriers if the specificity of each national system is retained solely for the sake of sovereignty. However, users do generally not oppose the harmonization of rules implying a reduction of costs and expenses − on the contrary. The transnational flow of products and services increases with globalization and the rise of newly independent States. At the same time, there has been a considerable increase in innovation and use of names and brands to distinguish the products of one enterprise from those of another. It became urgent to have more harmonized rules on the acquisition and maintenance of IPRs which would at the same time reduce the costs of obtaining and maintaining protection. The 1960s and 70s saw a number of decisive moves to accelerate the pace of harmonization. The pace has since accelerated further.
The International Bureau of the WIPO has usefully grouped the various treaties into three groups. One general group of WIPO treaties “defines internationally agreed basic standards of intellectual property protection in each country”, namely in addition to the Paris Convention, the Madrid Agreement for the repression or false or deceptive indications of source on goods, the Nairobi Treaty (protection of the Olympic symbol), the Patent Law Treaty, the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks, the Trademark Law Treaty and the Washington Treaty (integrated circuits).The second group of WIPO treaties on global protection systems “ensures that one international registration or filing will have effect in any of the relevant signatory states. These systems reduce the cost of making individual applications of filings in all the countries in which protection is sought”. This group includes the Budapest Treaty (deposit of micro-organisms for patent application procedures), The Hague Agreement (international registration of industrial designs), the Lisbon Agreement (protection and registration of appellations of origin), the Madrid Agreement and its Protocol (registration of trademarks), and the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). A third group of treaties relates to classification systems that “organize information concerning inventions, trademarks and industrial designs into indexed, manageable structures for easy retrieval”. These are the Locarno Agreement (classification for industrial designs), the Strasbourg Agreement (patent classification), the Vienna Agreement (classification of figurative elements of marks) and the Nice Agreement (classification of goods and services trademarks).
It is worth noting that Article 4 of the TRIPS Agreement expressly stipulates that the “obligations under Articles 3 [TRIPS national treatment principle] and 4 [TRIPS most-favoured nation principle] do not apply to procedures provided in multilateral agreements concluded under the auspices of WIPO relating to the acquisition or maintenance of intellectual property rights”. This was to prevent “free-riding”, that is enjoyment of a system without assuming the obligations.
a) The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)
The PCT was concluded in 1970 with Switzerland as one of the founding members. It was amended in 1979 and modified in 1984 and 2001. In 2020 the Treaty had 153 contracting parties, i.e. 79.3% of the total membership of WIPO, which is a very high percentage for voluntary adherence to a multilateral global system of protection.
In a nutshell, an international patent application filed at a national office or at the International Bureau of WIPO results in a bundle of national patent applications in the designated countries member to the PCT Union. This limits costs by giving the applicant the possibility of making, before entering the national phase in a designated country, a better-founded decision on the chances of its application leading to the granting of a patent. It also facilitates public access to a wealth of technical information relating to those inventions. The PCT’s advantages seem to be highly appreciated by the world’s major corporations, research institutions and universities that seek international patent protection. The costs involved in patent protection continue to be a factor often criticized by opponents to patent protection in general as being out of reach for small inventors and companies, not to mention developing countries. In response the PCT Union members had agreed to install a special scheme of reduced PCT fees subject to certain requirements to benefit applicants from developing countries. The reduction may amount to 75-90% of the fees.
As far Switzerland and Liechtenstein are concerned as a unitary territory for patent purposes, the filing of an international application can be done either directly at WIPO or at the IGE/IPI as the “receiving office”.
The PCT success story continues with the incoming revenues for the PCT Union and its member countries. The amount of the contribution to be devolved to each member “shall be decided by the Assembly with due regard to the number of international applications which has emanated from each of them in the relevant year.” This prosperous financial situation allows the PCT Union to partly share, as the case may be, the revenues with the Madrid, The Hague Union and Lisbon Unions. Switzerland receives a comfortable amount of revenues devolved to the members of the PCT Union within the scheme created.
A Swiss national, François Curchod, WIPO Deputy Director General from 1991 to 2001, was in charge of the global protection systems, including the PCT. Philippe Baechtold, former high-level civil servant in IGE/IPI, is Director of the PCT Services Department, and in 2020 was the highest-level ranking Swiss national in WIPO.
For further information see:
The first twenty-five years of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) 1970-1995 / World Intellectual Property Organization – WIPO Publication, No 884(E) 1; https://tind.wipo.int/record/28756?ln=en
Information further supplemented in https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/guide/index.html
b) The Madrid Agreement on the Registration of Marks (and Protocol)
The “Madrid System” is governed by the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks concluded in 1891, and the Protocol relating to that Agreement concluded in 1989. Switzerland is a founding member of the Madrid Agreement, which is the oldest multilateral registration treaty under the aegis of the Paris Convention. Adopted in 1891, it underwent six revisions, in: Brussels in 1911, The Hague in 1925, London in 1934, Nice in 1957 and Stockholm in 1967, subsequently being “amended” in 1979. The system makes it possible to protect a mark in a large number of countries by obtaining an international registration that has effect for each of the designated Contracting Parties. The latest revisions of the Agreement and the Protocol are principally aimed at encouraging adherence by certain new countries to the Madrid system (the US for example) or by intergovernmental organizations that have not been able to accede to the Agreement (the EU for example). The Madrid System, before the last revision, amendment and protocol, operated in French only. Now it operates in English, French and Spanish, considerably enhancing the attractiveness of the system worldwide.
A mark may be the subject of an international application if it has already been registered or an application has been filed with the trademark office (the “office of origin”) of the Contracting Party. An international application results in a bundle of national applications in the designated countries, subject to examination therein. If approved, the trademark will have the same scope of protection as trademarks filed individually without the burden of language management and attendant costs and expenses. The term of protection is 10 years on a renewable basis. Switzerland acts as office or origin.
As of 2020, the Madrid Union had 107 members covering 123 countries, representing, as noted by the WIPO, “more than 80% of world trade, with potential for expansion as membership grows”. As for the PCT, revenues stemming from the fees under the Madrid system are to be redistributed according to the modalities agreed by Madrid Members to the contracting parties designated by users of the system. It is the second-most profitable system in the WIPO registration galaxy. A non-negligible amount of revenues is devolved to IGE/IPI.
For further information see:
From WIPO: Madrid Agreement Centenary 1891-1991 – Publication N°880(E) https://www.wipo.int/madrid/en/
Guide to the International Registration of Marks under the Madrid Agreement and the Madrid Protocol (2019) https://www.wipo.int/publications/en/details.jsp?id=4440&plang=EN
From IGE/IPI: https://www.ige.ch/en/protecting-your-ip/trade-marks/international-applications.html
c) The Hague Agreement concerning the Registration of Industrial Designs
The Hague Agreement was concluded in 1925. The system now in force in 2020 is complex. Two Acts of the Hague Agreement are in operation – the 1999 Act and the 1960 Act. An international design registration may be obtained in a contracting party state to either of the two Acts through a single application with the International Bureau of WIPO, either directly or through the national or regional office. The system under The Hague Agreement simplifies management of industrial design registrations, making it possible to record subsequent changes and renew international registration through a single procedural step. The term of protection is five years, extendable for a maximum two more terms of five years respectively. International applications may include up to 100 designs provided they all belong to the same class of the International Classification for Industrial Designs (Locarno Classification). Another peculiar feature of the 1999 Act is the possibility for an applicant to request deferment of the publication. These two features are particularly useful, as an example, for a Swiss design company (e.g. textiles or watches) to avoid quick pirating by third parties of its designs before the company is able to put the goods on the market of the other contracting parties. To facilitate access to The Hague system for qualifying design creators from least developed countries (LDCs), the fees for an international application are reduced to 10 per cent of the prescribed amounts.
As of 2020 The Hague Agreement has 74 contracting parties covering 91 countries.
Switzerland is party to the 1999 Act. It is noteworthy that Switzerland’s revised Design Law goes well beyond the Hague Agreement, following the EU Directive and Regulation on designs. For example, the term of protection is five years with four possible extensions of five years each (total 25 years). The protection of designs has been particularly appreciated in Swiss circles of creators in recent years, be they individuals or associates of larger firms. In 2019 Switzerland was third after Germany and Korea (Republic of) in terms of residents in the country using The Hague Agreement.
For further information see:
From WIPO:
WIPO Reference No. 930/20/ExSum/E
https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_930_2020_exec_summary.pdf
From IGE/IPI: https://www.ige.ch/en/protecting-your-ip/designs/before-you-apply/applying-nationally-or-internationally.html
d) The Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and Their International Registration
Under the Lisbon Agreement of 1958, an “appellation of origin” is defined as “the geographical denomination of a country, region, or locality, which serves to designate a product originating therein, the quality or characteristics of which are due exclusively or essentially to the geographical environment, including natural and human factors.” It further stipulates that “the country of origin is the country whose name, or the country in which is situated the region or locality whose name, constitutes the appellation of origin which has given the product its reputation.” The linking to the criterion of reputation is strong. The concept of appellation of origin was not widely accepted in Switzerland initially, which was not inclined to adhere to the Lisbon Agreement at that time. The Geneva Act of 2005 softens the linkage by using more lenient wording that allows the wider definition of “geographical indication” agreed in the TRIPS Agreement. Such a change is purported to increase the attractiveness of the system. Members have the freedom to decide how the protection may be implemented (e.g. through a sui generis (tailored-made) appellation of origin or geographical indication system or through the trademark system). The Geneva Act also allows certain intergovernmental organizations to join the Lisbon system, making the international system of protection more inclusive, e.g. the EU and OAPI (Organization Africaine de la Propriété Intellectuelle). (See also Section VI)
The issuance of GIs continues to be a divisive issue. Whilst the choice of the general mode of protection of GIs is left to the countries, some non-member countries fear that registrations in one Lisbon Union country may have a negative impact on their ability to access the market of that Lisbon Union country. Under the Geneva Act, an application for international registration can be filed directly by the beneficiaries themselves or their representatives, or by the national competent authority (often the national industrial office). Furthermore, prior trademark rights, prior use of generic terms, personal names used in business and rights based on a plant variety or animal breed denomination are all safeguarded under the Geneva Act.
The Lisbon System currently has 32 members. The system is not yet self-financing. As of 2020, the Director of the Lisbon System Division is Alexandra Grazioli, former staff member in IGE/IPI.
For further information see:
From WIPO: WIPO Publication No. 942(E) (2005)
https://www.wipo.int/lisbon/en/
From IGE/IPI: https://www.ige.ch/en/law-and-policy/international-ip-law/ip-organizations/wipo/indications-of-source.html
Summary
The statistics on international filings in the various systems offered by the WIPO and updated on a regular basis indicate to what extent Swiss operators have made good use of international filings as part of their export strategy ever since. The statistics show the number of intellectual property filings by residents and from abroad that take effect in Switzerland. These statistics include lists of the patent applications, patent grants, patents in force, utility model applications and trade mark protection sought in different fields, providing data for applications and registrations of industrial designs. Importantly, the statistics also indicate usage of the international registration systems discussed above, the Paris, Madrid and Hague Systems. The figures show a growing number of patent applications, reaching 4,500 in 2020, with trademark protection reaching 3,800 applications and much lower numbers for industrial designs. Most of the applications originate from abroad, with residents accountable for much lower numbers. The statistics also show the top Swiss users of the three international registration systems that are actively used. In addition to multinational corporations, the Federal Polytechnical School Lausanne (EPUL) is also listed. The country profile of Switzerland reflects the growing overall importance of intellectual property for the Swiss economy, operating in a globalized environment.