Switzerland: The Swiss Supreme Court invalidates Nestlé's 3D trade mark for its Nespresso capsules

In brief

The question whether Nestlé's Nespresso capsules enjoy trade mark protection has been subject to various court decisions in the last approximately twenty years since Nestlé applied for the registration of its Nespresso capsules as a three dimensional trade mark (3D trade mark) in Switzerland. Recently, the Swiss Supreme Court wrote the last act in this saga by invalidating Nestlé's 3D trade mark when it regarded the shape of the capsule used for Nestlé's Nespresso machines as technically necessary.


The background of the dispute at hand 

Over the past three decades, Nestlé have been successfully marketing its Nespresso system, which has two basic components: Nespresso coffee machines and Nespresso capsules. Next to various patents relating to the machines and the capsules, which have all expired by now, Nestlé have registered a 3D trade mark for the shape of the capsule in Switzerland in 2000 (Swiss trade mark Reg. No. P-486 889, registered for "coffee, coffee extracts and preparations on the basis of coffee").


Ethical Coffee Company, a small Swiss company, developed a biodegradable coffee capsule (based on vegetable fibers and starch) compatible with the Nespresso system. The capsules were first sold in Switzerland at the end of September 2011.

(Credit: Ethical Coffee Company (Suisse) SA)

Shortly afterwards, Nestlé at first secured a preliminary injunction prohibiting Ethical Coffee Company from distributing its capsules in ex parte proceedings, based on their registered 3D mark. This decision was eventually overturned by the Swiss Supreme Court on procedural grounds and the lower court, in a second decision in 2014, rejected the request for preliminary injunction on the grounds that the shape of the capsule was technically necessary and thus excluded from trade mark protection according to Art. 2 lit. b of the Swiss Trade mark Protection Act (TmPA).

Simultaneously, in 2012, Nestlé sued Ethical Coffee Company in the main proceedings and requested a permanent injunction against the distribution of the capsules. Ethical Coffee Company countersued for invalidity of the 3D trade mark. These first instance proceedings only came to an end in 2020, having suffered significant delays due to the insolvency of Ethical Coffee Company. The court of first instance ultimately rejected Nestlé's request for injunction and invalidated their 3D trade mark for the Nespresso capsules. Nestlé appealed this decision to the Swiss Supreme Court - which has now drawn the final line in this epic saga.

The decision of the Swiss Supreme Court

On 7 September 2021, the Swiss Supreme Court rejected Nestlé's appeal (see here for the decision in French). In its decision, it elaborated at length on the origins of the exclusion of "shapes of the goods or their packaging that are technically necessary" from trade mark protection according to Art. 2 lit. b TmPA.

The Swiss Supreme Court pointed out that the notion "technically necessary" originates from its case law with regard to unfair competition law according to which even a slavish imitation of a product's design is permissible if the design is technically necessary. In Swiss trade mark law, a shape is "technically necessary" (1) if there is no alternative shape for a product of the same kind available, or (2) if adopting such alternative shape cannot reasonably be required from a competitor in the interest of a functioning competition. The latter is the case if the alternative solution is less practical (less convenient), less robust (less resistant) or has higher production costs (more expensive) since competitors cannot be expected to give up the most obvious and adequate solution.

In its past decisions, the Swiss Supreme Court always held that the range of possible alternative shapes was not limited to those compatible with a preexisting system (see here for its decision on Lego's plastic bricks in German). However, this legal position was reversed in the present decision: A majority of Swiss scholars challenged this position, and contended that the compatibility of a product with a preexisting system may very well represent a "technical necessity" in the sense of Art. 2 lit. b TmPA. The scholars argued that, in the interest of competitors, but also consumers, the possibility to register 3D trade marks shall not enable unlimited monopolies for technical solutions which are not (or not anymore) protected by intellectual property rights. The Swiss Supreme Court now followed these arguments.

The Swiss Supreme Court found that Nestlé's patent for its Nespresso capsules expired in 1996 in Switzerland and in 2005 in the EU. Moreover, Nestlé sells its Nespresso capsules for a relatively expensive price, whereas the Nespresso machines are comparatively inexpensive. The Swiss Supreme Court therefore concluded that competitors, also in the interest of consumers, must be free to design capsules which are compatible with Nestlé's Nespresso system.

The Swiss Supreme Court then went on to examine possible alternative shapes to Nestlé's Nespresso capsules, which are compatible with the Nespresso coffee machines, based on expert reports provided by the parties. It determined that the alternative capsule shapes do not offer a functioning and result equivalent to the Nespresso capsules, since they do not fully correspond to the capsule department of the Nespresso coffee machines. Therefore, although there are alternative shapes available, the Swiss Supreme Court arrived at the conclusion that competitors cannot reasonably be required to adopt such alternative shapes. As a consequence, the shape of Nestlé's Nespresso capsules is excluded from trade mark protection since it is "technically necessary" according to Art. 2 lit. b TmPA.

Consequences for the registration of 3D trade marks in Switzerland

Whereas the wording of Art. 2 lit. b of the Swiss TmPA, which stipulates the exclusion of "technically necessary" shapes from protection as 3D trademarks, does not differ significantly from Art. 7.1 EUTMR, its interpretation does. Thus, according to the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, a shape is excluded from trade mark protection, if all its essential characteristics fulfil a technical function, independently of other possible shapes. Contrary to this, the Swiss Supreme Court states that a shape is only excluded from protection as a 3D trade mark, if there is either (1) no alternative shape available or (2) if adopting such alternative shape cannot reasonably be expected from competitors.

In addition to this, for a long time, the range of possible alternative shapes was more or less infinite, since the Swiss Supreme Court held that the range of possible alternative shapes was not limited to those compatible with a pre-existing system. In the present decision, the Swiss Supreme Court has now reversed its standing case law: It determined that if technical solutions are not (or not anymore) protected by intellectual property rights, their protection cannot be extended by registering them as 3D trademarks. Thus, once the intellectual property protection of these technical solutions has expired, companies must be free to sell products which are compatible with technical solutions sold by their competitors. As a consequence, the range of possible alternative shapes is in principle limited to those compatible with the pre-existing system of a competitor, which will make it more difficult in the future to register 3D trade marks in Switzerland, thus aligning the Swiss standards with those in the European Union (as was, by the way, also the intention of the legislator when drafting Art. 2 lit. b TmPA).

 

Contact Information

Copyright © 2022 Baker & McKenzie. All rights reserved. Ownership: This documentation and content (Content) is a proprietary resource owned exclusively by Baker McKenzie (meaning Baker & McKenzie International and its member firms). The Content is protected under international copyright conventions. Use of this Content does not of itself create a contractual relationship, nor any attorney/client relationship, between Baker McKenzie and any person. Non-reliance and exclusion: All Content is for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal and regulatory developments. All summaries of the laws, regulations and practice are subject to change. The Content is not offered as legal or professional advice for any specific matter. It is not intended to be a substitute for reference to (and compliance with) the detailed provisions of applicable laws, rules, regulations or forms. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any action or refraining from taking any action based on any Content. Baker McKenzie and the editors and the contributing authors do not guarantee the accuracy of the Content and expressly disclaim any and all liability to any person in respect of the consequences of anything done or permitted to be done or omitted to be done wholly or partly in reliance upon the whole or any part of the Content. The Content may contain links to external websites and external websites may link to the Content. Baker McKenzie is not responsible for the content or operation of any such external sites and disclaims all liability, howsoever occurring, in respect of the content or operation of any such external websites. Attorney Advertising: This Content may qualify as “Attorney Advertising” requiring notice in some jurisdictions. To the extent that this Content may qualify as Attorney Advertising, PRIOR RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE A SIMILAR OUTCOME. Reproduction: Reproduction of reasonable portions of the Content is permitted provided that (i) such reproductions are made available free of charge and for non-commercial purposes, (ii) such reproductions are properly attributed to Baker McKenzie, (iii) the portion of the Content being reproduced is not altered or made available in a manner that modifies the Content or presents the Content being reproduced in a false light and (iv) notice is made to the disclaimers included on the Content. The permission to re-copy does not allow for incorporation of any substantial portion of the Content in any work or publication, whether in hard copy, electronic or any other form or for commercial purposes.