04 July 2025

Likelihood of Confusion between INSTAGRAM and WEDGRAM

  • Articles
  • Compliance
  • Legal
  • Data / Technology / IP

The IPI confirms a likelihood of confusion between “WEDGRAM” and “INSTAGRAM” and clarifies the protection of well-known brand elements and the requirements for dilution.

  • Stephanie Ast

    Junior Legal Associate

  • Luca Hitz

    Legal Partner

  • Philipp Stadler

    Senior Legal Associate

On March 26, 2025, the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (IPI) issued a decision in favor of Instagram LLC in opposition proceedings. The subject of the case was the trademark “WEDGRAM ((fig.))”, registered by Kuruvilla Worldwide AG for software and services in the field of wedding planning in Classes 9, 35, and 38. Instagram filed an opposition based on four earlier Swiss word and figurative trademarks for “INSTAGRAM”, registered inter alia for software, telecommunications services, and social networking.

In its decision, the IPI found a legally relevant likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Art. 3(1)(c) of the Swiss Trademark Protection Act (TmPA). The IPI emphasized that the element “GRAM”, which appears in both “INSTAGRAM” and “WEDGRAM”, was sufficient to create a mental association among the relevant public. Despite the different beginnings of the words, the trademarks were considered similar in sound and appearance. While the graphic element of the younger mark – an infinity symbol with a heart – contributed to the visual impression, it was not sufficient to significantly alter the overall perception of the sign.

The IPI further held that “INSTAGRAM” enjoys an average degree of distinctiveness and a normal scope of protection. The opponent's argument that the sign element “GRAM” had become diluted was rejected. The Institute clarified that dilution requires a substantial number of third-party marks owned by unrelated companies for similar goods or services in Switzerland. In this case, the reference to eight such marks was not deemed sufficient, particularly since their actual use in the market had not been demonstrated.

As a result, the opposition was partially upheld, and the registration of WEDGRAM was revoked for all goods in Classes 9 and 38, as well as for contract intermediation services in Class 35. The mark was allowed to remain registered only for “office functions, including appointment scheduling and booking for weddings”, as these services were not considered similar to those covered by the earlier INSTAGRAM marks.

The decision illustrates that even individual identical trademark elements – if they are decisive for the overall impression – can establish a likelihood of confusion. Furthermore, the IPI agrees, in line with court practice, that well-known trademarks are also subject to the principle of specialty, and their notoriety can only influence the scope of protection but does not lead to an extended area of similarity, thereby avoiding the undermining of the principle of specialty.

Click here to learn more about our expertise:
Back