Swiss Federal Administrative Court Rules No Trademark Similarity Between Medical Products and Services in CannaMed Case

The Swiss Federal Administrative Court issued a pivotal judgment on April 29, 2026, in case B-6574/2025 concerning the opposition between the trademarks 'Swiss CannaMed (fig.)' and 'CannaMed Schweiz (fig.)'. The dispute involved registrations spanning class 5 (medical products) and class 44 (medical and therapeutic services).

At first instance, the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (IPI) dismissed the opposition filed by the holders of the earlier 'Swiss CannaMed (fig.)' mark, finding no likelihood of confusion between the marks.

On appeal, the Federal Administrative Court examined two core issues: the similarity between goods and services under the contested classes and the conditions required to establish enhanced distinctiveness acquired through use.

The Court notably differentiated between the cosmetics market (class 3) and the pharmaceutical products market (class 5) when compared with class 44 services encompassing healthcare, beauty care, and medical services.

It found that the cosmetic products covered by the earlier mark—such as cosmetic preparations, non-medicated toiletries, and perfumery—were similar to certain health-related services under class 44, including health information provision and healthcare consultancy. This similarity was grounded not merely in functional links but also in the commercial reality that beauty care service providers often sell cosmetic products and advise clients on their use, reflecting a "dual role" of cosmetic products extending beyond pure function.

Conversely, the Court rejected the argument that pharmaceutical products and medical preparations (class 5) were similar to medical and therapeutic services (class 44). Despite thematic and functional connections, medicines and hygienic products are not independently sold for home use but are confined to administration within medical treatment contexts. The Court emphasized that, unlike cosmetics, there is no established commercial practice of doctors independently marketing pharmaceutical goods outside treatment settings.

Regarding the claim of enhanced distinctiveness through use, the Court reaffirmed the requirement of documented use over a 10-year period. The appellants failed to demonstrate intensive use or exceptional circumstances warranting a shorter period.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that the earlier 'Swiss CannaMed (fig.)' mark possessed, at best, very weak distinctiveness. The limited similarities between the marks involved elements considered part of the public domain, insufficient to establish a likelihood of confusion under trademark law.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the initial decision by the IPI.

This ruling provides important guidance for trademark practitioners and companies operating in pharmaceutical, medical, and cosmetic sectors, clarifying the nuanced approach Swiss courts take when assessing similarity between goods and services across these classes.

Specialist advice remains recommended for entities navigating trademark oppositions involving complex overlaps between medical products and services.