Michael Ritscher

You have been recognised as one of Switzerland’s most esteemed IP litigators. What advice would you give to someone hoping to pursue a similar career? 

As is the case in all industries, the prerequisites for professional success are enthusiasm for interdisciplinary topics and challenges, hard work, a bit of talent and that little bit of luck that is always needed. 

I would also add that having talented younger colleagues in the team, enjoying the trust of clients and having a physical and mental strength that allows you to endure the often stressful work and constant confrontation with your own inadequacies is beneficial.  

How do you predict current economic challenges might impact the appetite for trademark registration in Switzerland? 

The handling and protection of trademarks must be based on a strategy that is grounded in a corporate and marketing strategy. 

Such a trademark strategy must be long term and should not depend on short-term economic or other changes in circumstances.

Last year you chaired the international conference on the practice of IP law in Europe, where you also appeared as a panellist discussing the UPC and unitary patent. What were the most crucial takeaways from this? 

The UPC and the unitary patent and the current paradigm shift in the copyright protection of designs are the most important developments to global IP law since the modernisation of trademark and design protection at the end of the last century.

For the European Union in particular, these developments are a milestone on the road to a single market and strengthens its position as a global economic power.

For users, however, the UPC system will lead to considerable uncertainties and corresponding costs in the short and medium term.

While this development will not jeopardise Germany's importance as a large market and a preferred location for the judicial enforcement of patent rights, with its high-quality patent court, Switzerland will continue to offer an interesting addition.

What are your top strategic recommendations for contentious cross-border litigation when a client is involved in multiple jurisdictions – Swiss, EU and international? 

Every litigation strategy must first be aligned with the client's objectives. The next step is to determine which of the many courts with jurisdiction can exert the greatest pressure on the other side, usually by means of interlocutory injunctive relief. 

Under certain circumstances, a parallel approach to several courts may be justified. 

It is crucial to establish a channel at management level and keep it open in order to be able to negotiate an out-of-court settlement at any time.

What was the biggest issue facing your clients in Switzerland in the past 12 months, and how did you help them overcome this?

Due to the small number of cases, the courts in Switzerland – including the Federal Supreme Court and excluding the Federal Patent Court – do not specialise in IP law. This is why the decisions are sometimes frustrating, and why we usually advise that clients bring cases before one of the four cantonal commercial courts, where an agreement can often be reached speedily after the first exchange of briefs and on the basis of a preliminary assessment.

In my role as president of INGRES, I actively include judges and clerks in our seminars, conferences and workshops.   

You have played many roles throughout your career, as a head of MLL Legal’s IP team, as judge with the Zurich Court of Commerce and as president of INGRES, the most active Swiss IP association. What aspects of your career have you found to be most fulfilling, and how have these experiences furthered your professional development?

The opportunity to experience IP law not just from the perspective of a lawyer but also from the perspective of a judge – and to deal with it scientifically – not only brings great personal satisfaction, it also benefits colleagues in the team and, of course, our clients.  

MLL Legal is renowned for embracing new technologies. Are you using AI tools in your practice, and if so, which ones? What are some of the pros and cons of using such tools?

It is part of our corporate strategy to utilise new technologies. For example, we recently introduced the new ELLE data management system for the entire firm. We are also currently evaluating a new system for the now large and global portfolio of trademarks and designs that we manage for our clients.

I see great potential in these tools when it comes to carrying out certain tasks faster and more cost effectively, but no more than that. People are and will remain the decisive factor.  

How have client expectations evolved over the last 12 months, and have you had to adapt your practice to meet these? 

In addition to the ever-present cost pressures, our speed has also increased. To a certain extent, new technologies make both of these things easier for us.

Further, because people remain crucial, we are constantly expanding our team and adding new talents.  

If you could make one change to the current EU trademark litigation regime, what would it be and do you think it is likely to happen? 

The EU trademark litigation system is lagging behind the development of the EU patent litigation system in terms of both substance and procedure.  

In order to change this, there needs to be more international dialogue between judges. On the other hand, the enforceability of EU trademarks should also be improved. 

I am confident that both of these things will happen, even if it is not as quickly as we would like.  

Big events (eg, the Olympics and the UEFA Euros) are taking place this year. With counterfeiting around these expected to surge, how can brand owners prepare and mitigate this? 

If you have a viable brand protection strategy and have implemented it successfully, you should not need to make any special preparations. For both clients that organise such events and those that use such events as marketing opportunities, the strategy should include a chapter on ‘ambush marketing’.