Swiss food startup Planted Foods received an unexpected decision from the Federal Court, which banned the labeling of a product as “Pork Vegan.” The reason given was the risk of misleading consumers who are accustomed to the ingredients, in accordance with Swiss legislation requiring “truthful” labels (Bilan.ch).

The decision is surprising, as names combining animal names with terms such as ‘vegan’ or “vegetable” are widely used in many countries. For example, initiatives such as Meatless Monday promote plant-based substitutes for pork (Meatless Monday). These phrases, such as “vegan pork” or “vegan fish,” are familiar to consumers and reflect the growing demand for meat alternatives.

The case has important implications for trademark protection. A quick search shows that the European Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) granted the word mark “VEGAN PORK” (No. 016316655) in 2017 to a Romanian owner for meat substitutes, not meat products. Similarly, the trademark “VEG CHICKEN” (no. 018569585) enjoys broad protection in the EU, having been granted to Paniceus GmbH. In Germany, Rügenwalder Mühle promotes products such as “vegetable salami” and “vegan fish” and owns trademarks such as “Vegetarische Mühlen Chickenburger” (No. 302016008495) (Rügenwalder Mühle). In Switzerland, the Trademark Office registered “VEGANEGG” (No. 1347942) for Danone, intended for egg substitutes. These examples indicate a general tolerance on the part of trademark offices towards names that combine seemingly contradictory terms, reflecting a socio-economic reality: consumers accept and seek such products.

The Federal Court appears not to have taken into account trademark registration practice, which supports the acceptance of terms such as “VEGANPORK” or “Pork Vegan” as clear indicators of meat substitutes. Consumers in many countries are accustomed to such names, as evidenced by the large number of similar trademarks registered, including in Switzerland. The likelihood of confusion should have been assessed through market studies, not just through a subjective interpretation. Consumers, who are the ones who could be affected, deserve an analysis based on concrete data that reflects the current socio-economic context.

A relevant example is vegan chocolate, which enjoys significant protection through trademarks such as “DRACH-OC VEGAN CHOCOLATE” (No. 018957549) and is widely available in stores. Manufacturers such as Laderach, Lindt, Neuhaus, and Leonidas offer such products, demonstrating that seemingly paradoxical names are well understood by consumers. This suggests that the term “vegan pork” could become accepted over time as demand for vegan alternatives grows.

The Federal Court’s decision against the “Vegan Pork” label reflects a strict approach, but appears to contradict international practice and consumer expectations. While Swiss legislation clearly prioritizes clarity, other countries’ tolerance of names such as “vegan pork” indicates a global trend. It is likely only a matter of time before Switzerland recognizes the need to accept these terms, aligning itself with market reality.