DACH Market Counterfeit Enforcement: What Germany, Austria and Switzerland Require That the US Doesn't

Germany and Austria, as EU member states, share access to EU-wide trademark protection and the EU's Application for Action customs mechanism, along with obligations placed on marketplaces under the EU Digital Services Act. Switzerland sits outside the EU entirely, which means none of those EU-wide tools apply there directly, and a brand enforcing across the full DACH region needs a separate Swiss trademark registration and a separate customs recordation with Swiss authorities to get equivalent border protection. Treating DACH as a single enforcement zone, the way a brand might treat US enforcement as one system, misses this split.

Why Grouping DACH Together Is a Common but Costly Mistake

Germany, Austria, and Switzerland share a language and significant cultural and commercial overlap, which leads some brands to assume their legal and enforcement environment is similarly unified. It is not. Germany and Austria are both EU member states, subject to EU trademark law, the EU customs framework, and EU platform regulation. Switzerland is not part of the EU and maintains its own trademark registration system, its own customs enforcement process, and its own legal framework for unfair competition and intellectual property. A brand that registers an EU trademark and files an EU Application for Action, assuming this covers all three DACH markets, will find Swiss border enforcement is simply not included.

What Germany and Austria Share as EU Members

EU trademark coverage.

A single EU trademark registered through the European Union Intellectual Property Office covers both Germany and Austria, along with every other EU member state, without separate national filings.

The EU Application for Action.

Both countries participate in the EU's customs detention mechanism under Regulation 608/2013, meaning a Union-wide application filed once covers customs enforcement in both markets alongside the rest of the EU.

Digital Services Act obligations on marketplaces.

Marketplaces operating in Germany and Austria are subject to the same DSA requirements around notice-and-action mechanisms for illegal content and trader traceability verification that apply across the EU, the same framework covered in how the EU Digital Services Act changes brand protection for marketplaces and online platforms.

What Switzerland Requires Separately

A Swiss trademark registration.

Since Switzerland is not covered by an EU trademark, brands need a separate registration with the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property to hold enforceable trademark rights within Switzerland specifically.

Separate customs recordation with Swiss authorities.

The EU's Application for Action does not extend to Swiss borders. Brands seeking the equivalent border protection in Switzerland need to file directly with the Swiss Federal Customs Administration, which operates its own, distinct process from the EU system.

No DSA obligations on Swiss-only marketplaces.

Since Switzerland is outside the EU, marketplaces operating purely within Switzerland are not bound by the DSA's notice-and-action or trader traceability requirements, which means brands relying on those specific EU obligations as a baseline expectation need a different approach for enforcement against Swiss-only platforms.

Where Germany's Distinct Legal Culture Still Applies Regardless of EU Status

Separate from the EU-level tools, Germany has its own well-established practice of using the Abmahnung, a formal cease-and-desist letter often paired with a demand for a penalty-backed cease-and-desist declaration, to resolve infringement without full litigation. This is a feature of German law specifically, not something shared automatically with Austria or Switzerland, even though all three countries share German as a primary business language. A brand assuming this mechanism works the same way across all three markets because the language is shared would be working from a legal assumption that does not hold. This German-specific toolkit is covered in more depth in brand protection for German e-commerce companies selling across Europe.

What This Means for Building a DACH Enforcement Plan

A brand serious about enforcement across all three DACH markets needs, at minimum, an EU trademark covering Germany and Austria, a separate Swiss trademark registration, an EU Application for Action for customs coverage in Germany and Austria, and a separate Swiss customs recordation for equivalent protection at Swiss borders. Legal counsel familiar with both EU and Swiss intellectual property law is worth the investment for any brand with meaningful commercial exposure across all three markets, since assuming EU tools cover Switzerland is the single most common and costly planning gap. That same registration work needs to be paired with marketplace-level visibility, since the risk landscape covered in counterfeit risk on Zalando, OTTO, Kaufland and other European marketplaces runs across these same three markets.

Why Monitoring Still Needs to Treat DACH as Three Distinct Legal Environments

Even with the right registrations and customs filings in place, day-to-day monitoring for counterfeit and unauthorized seller activity needs to account for this same split, since enforcement action taken in response to a detected violation will route through a different legal mechanism depending on whether the activity is occurring in Germany, Austria, or Switzerland specifically. Remove.tech's monitoring covers marketplaces, social platforms, and websites across all three markets continuously, using bot-powered search and image recognition to detect violations regardless of country, with enforcement routing built to reflect the correct legal and platform-specific process for each. Brands wanting a first look at where their own DACH exposure currently stands can start with a free brand audit.

FAQ

Does a Swiss trademark registration also protect a brand in Liechtenstein?

Switzerland and Liechtenstein maintain a customs union and share certain trademark arrangements, which is worth confirming directly with counsel for brands with specific exposure there, but this should not be assumed to extend automatically without verification for every situation.

Is it worth pursuing full DACH enforcement infrastructure for a brand with only minor sales in Switzerland?

This depends on the scale of Swiss exposure specifically. A brand with meaningful counterfeit or unauthorized seller activity concentrated in Switzerland benefits from the separate registration and customs filing; a brand with negligible Swiss sales volume may reasonably prioritize EU coverage first and evaluate Swiss-specific investment as that market grows.

Do German, Austrian, and Swiss courts recognize each other's rulings on trademark infringement?

Generally no in any automatic sense. EU member state courts operate within a shared EU legal framework for EU trademark matters, but Switzerland, as a non-EU country, is not bound by EU court rulings, which reinforces why separate Swiss-specific legal action is often necessary for Swiss infringement cases.

How often should a DACH enforcement strategy be reviewed given the regulatory differences?

Reviewing at least annually, or whenever EU platform regulation changes meaningfully (such as updates to DSA enforcement guidance) or Swiss trademark and customs procedures update, keeps the strategy aligned with what is actually enforceable in each market rather than relying on outdated assumptions.

Germany, Austria, and Switzerland share a language, but not a legal system. Germany and Austria benefit from EU-wide trademark and customs tools that Switzerland sits outside of entirely, and Germany's own Abmahnung culture is a further distinct layer beyond either. A DACH enforcement plan built without accounting for this split will find its EU-based coverage simply does not reach Swiss borders when it matters most.

‍