Novartis SA sought to register the word mark LUXOR for ophtalmic microscopes (distributed by its subsidiary Alcon) in Switzerland. The IPO refused, citing the risk that the relevant consumers would infer that the thus designated products came from Egypt.

Upon appeal, the Federal Administrative Court confirmed. While there were other meanings for LUXOR, namely in connection with the claimed goods, such as "light" and "gold" (LUX-OR), the predominant understanding of LUXOR was as a geographic indication for the ancient city with the same name in Egypt. Consumers could therefore be misled about the origin of the goods in question (surprise, they are not made in Egypt). Whethere or not Egypt had a reputation for such products was irrelevant (this is constant case law).

Novartis then sought to prove "secondary meaning". The Administrative Court held that the standard of proof for secondary meaning (of a geographic indication) was higher than the standard for proof of acquired distinctiveness, and regularly required intensive use of the mark for at least ten years on the Swiss market. In the case at hand, Novartis had shown revenues of goods branded with LUXOR in Switzerland of several million Swiss Francs per year, but only since 2011. This was insufficient to prove secondary meaning.

Note that the figurative mark "LuxOr" (depicted below) was registered without problems. In the figurative mark, the relevant consumer will easily discern that the mark is composed of LUX and OR, and does not refer to the Egyptian city Luxor.

Judgment B-6503/2014 of 3 July 2015 (not final, could be appealed to the Supreme Court).