Appeal for revision against a cantonal judgment for lack of reasoning and mention of applicable law

Facts

On October 14, 1963, the Commercial Court of the Canton of Zurich rendered a judgment in a case opposing Carl Zeiss Heidenheim to VEB Carl Zeiss Jena. The judgment prohibited VEB Carl Zeiss Jena from using the name "Zeiss" or "Carl Zeiss" in its commercial activities in Switzerland and with regard to Switzerland. VEB Carl Zeiss Jena filed an appeal for revision against this judgment with the FJA.

The facts of the case are as follows: Carl Zeiss Heidenheim brought an action against VEB Carl Zeiss Jena for trademark infringement and unfair competition. The Commercial Court of the Canton of Zurich rendered a judgment that prohibited VEB Carl Zeiss Jena from using the name "Zeiss" or "Carl Zeiss" in its commercial activities in Switzerland and with regard to Switzerland.

Considerations

The FJA considered that the judgment of the Commercial Court of the Canton of Zurich was flawed by two procedural defects. Firstly, the judgment did not contain all the reasons on which it was based in fact and in law, as required by Article 51 paragraph 1 letter d of the Federal Judiciary Act (FJA). The Commercial Court had merely referred to a previous judgment rendered in a different case, without clearly explaining the reasons why it applied the same principles in the present case.

Secondly, the judgment did not clearly mention the applicable law, as required by Article 51 paragraph 1 letter c FJA. The FJA considered that these procedural defects were sufficient to annul the judgment and refer the case back to the Commercial Court for a new decision.

The FJA also…