{"Signatur": "VD_TC_007", "Spider": "VD_FindInfo", "Datum": "2021-01-01", "PDF": {"Datei": "VD_FindInfo/VD_TC_007_CB19-042714_nodate.pdf", "URL": "https://prestations.vd.ch/pub/101623/api/decision/download/b7a0fc4c-e009-4478-9b1b-c36cd99a3427", "Checksum": "e03312066dc51eb00383b8d8f6cd1bae"}, "Scrapedate": "2023-01-01", "Num": ["CB19.042714"], "Kopfzeile": [{"Sprachen": ["fr", "de", "it"], "Text": "Vaud Tribunal cantonal Cour civile CB19.042714"}], "Meta": [{"Sprachen": ["de"], "Text": "Waadt  Cour civile"}, {"Sprachen": ["fr"], "Text": "Vaud Tribunal cantonal Cour civile"}, {"Sprachen": ["it"], "Text": "Vaud  Cour civile"}], "Abstract": [{"Sprachen": ["de", "fr", "it"], "Text": "Propriété intellectuelle"}], "ScrapyJob": "446973/39/2237", "Zeit UTC": "10.04.2026 03:21:50", "Checksum": "4ddb05807dc409aea937f4d83d400e83", "Chunktext": "Extrait de l'arrêt Vaud Tribunal cantonal Cour civile CB19.042714\nRegeste:\nPropriété intellectuelle\n\n from the fact that the relevant public understands the relevant sign\nas an indication of origin of one specific company/undertaking.\nTherefore, « brand » must not be used until respondents have\nanswered the question on distinctiveness. Because : once a(n)\n(additional) stimulus has been set in a certain direction, it is obvious\nthat respondents will continue to think (also) in this direction in the\nsense of « a certain brand = a certain company », which might\ndistort the results. This shortcoming might have inflated the results,\nalthough the extent cannot be estimated.\n\n28 Further, the meaning of (…) (assign to different companies/brands)\nand (…) (« assign to no particular company/brand ») is not clearly\ndelineated, but overlaps in content as those who assign the shape to\ndifferent companies/brands (…), at the same time do assign the\nshape to no particular company/brand (…). In these cases, if\nrespondents were to assign the shape to no particular\ncompany/brand but to different companies/brands, which answer\noption should respondents choose ? (…)\n\n29 In this regard, it is not clear why Dr. [...] uses different designations\nfor the stages of the 3-step test (…) than the IPI (…) Guidelines (…).\n\n30 Perhaps this is related to the unusual and inadequate wording in\nquestion G2 : « assign to » (« ordne zu » / « attribue » /\n« attribuisco ») (…). Nonetheless, it should be noted that the naming\nof the three steps in the Guidelines is well established in empirical\nlegal research and does not nead any change.\n\n31 In addition, the rotation of the answer options on the list was\nincorrect. (…)\n\n32 It is known that aspects mentioned / shown in the middle of a list\ntend to be less chosen (…). Therefore, it is always most advisable to\nhave all three answer options with content (…) rotated and not only\ntwo.\n\n(…)\n\n34 (…) There are several shortcomings with respect to question G2\n(ndr : En lien avec les barres de chocolat, j’attribue cette forme\nuniquement à une entreprise/marque bien précise – à différentes\nentreprises/marques – à aucune entreprise/marque en particulier –\nje n’ai pas d’avis à ce sujet). On the one hand, there are deficits that\nmight have increased the share for « only one particular\ncompany/brand » (71%), such as the incorrect use of « brand » in\nthe answer options or the fact that this question was also asked of\nthose who had answered « don’t know » or gave no answer in G1\n(ndr : Avez-vous déjà vu cette forme en lien avec des barres de\nchocolat, ou vous est-elle familière ou vous est-elle au contraire\ntotalement inconnue en lien avec des barres de chocolat ? Oui, j’ai\ndéjà vu cette forme – elle m’est familière – elle m’est totalement\ninconnue – ne sais pas/pas d’indication).\n\n35 On the other hand, the share for « only one particular\ncompany/brand » might have been slightly higher if instead of the\nrestrictive « assign to » an appropriate wording like « indication of »\nor similar had been used. All in all, the results would probably not\n- 20 -\n\nhave been much lower if the deficiencies mentioned in the section\nhad been avoided.\n\n(…)\n\n37 While the question as such was correct, no deduction of\n« incorrect » attributions by name (8%) from the degree of\ndistinctiveness (71%) was made in the IfD report. The IPI Guidelines,\nwith references to the « Oktoberfest-Bier » decision by the Swiss\nFederal Administrative Court (…), explicitly state that « clearly\nwrong attributions must be deducted from the degree of\ndistinctiveness » (…). Applying these principles, the degree of\ndistinctiveness is to be reduced to 63% (= 71% minus 8%).\n\n38 However, from an empirical legal research point of view, it has to be\nstressed that a standardised deduction of any incorrect attributions\nby name often leads to inappropriate results. This is because such\ngeneralised deductiosn assume that respondents always actually\nknow the respective company / brand name. It is known, however,\nthat in particular the correct name of the company is often not\nrelevant in consumer perception. This is because consumers –\ndepending on the goods in question – are guided more or less by\nbrand names ; the exact company names behind these may have\nonly subordinate relevance (…). Asking about the name of the\ncompany or brand, even though the exact name might (currently)\nnot be known, encourages guesswork.\n\n39 A deduction of all incorrect attributions by name should only be\nconsidered to be appropriate in cases where they concentrate on\none specific competitor (…) or are substantial in scope or where the\nattributions refer to other products that use the same or a similar\nsign (…). Here, the « incorrect » attributions do not concentrate on\none competitor. Further, a share of 8% cannot be classified as\nsubstantial in scope, so that the second exception referred to above\ndoes not apply either. (…)\n\n(…)\n\n"}