The Swiss Federal Administrative Court has ruled against the Swiss Ice Hockey Federation (SIHF), concluding a legal dispute over the use of the Swiss national emblem (the coat of arms with a cross) on hockey jerseys and in connection with the Swiss national hockey team. The court confirmed that the SIHF no longer has the right to use the national emblem. This case has once again highlighted the complex and varied rules governing the use of national symbols, a phenomenon observed across numerous countries, including the Czech Republic.
The SIHF is the governing body for ice hockey in Switzerland. It oversees domestic competitions and represents Swiss ice hockey interests internationally. Since 2015, the Swiss national emblem has been prominently featured on the jerseys of the country’s national ice hockey teams.
In January 2017, a revised Federal Law on the Protection of the Swiss National Emblem came into effect, granting the Swiss Confederation exclusive rights to use the national emblem as a state entity. The new law provided a two-year window for other entities to apply for continued use and secure an exemption, but this period expired on 31 December 2018.
In 2018, the Swiss Ice Hockey Federation (SIHF) wrote to the Swiss Federal Ministry of Defence and Sport, requesting temporary relief from the obligation to remove the national emblem. The SIHF cited the financial and organisational challenges involved. However, in 2021, the SIHF’s formal request for continued use of the national emblem was already rejected by the Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (IGE) as being submitted past the deadline.
The SIHF challenged the decision to reject its application, ultimately bringing the case before the Federal Administrative Court. However, the Swiss Federal Administrative Court upheld the IGE’s original decision.
Special circumstances
The SIHF argued that its extensive and long-standing use of the national emblem justified an exemption. However, the Court stated that an exemption requires continuous use of the symbol for at least 30 years, along with proof of substantial hardship if the exemption is denied.
The use of the SIHF emblem since 2015 has been significantly below this threshold. Moreover, the Court noted that there are a number of alternatives to the Swiss national symbol that can be used on the jerseys, so the condition of substantial hardship to the SIHF in its continued operation is not met either.
Finally, the court pointed out that the SIHF's application for continued use was not filed until 2021, well after the initial deadline.
Will there be a change of Swiss jersey after all?
The controversy surrounding this case has sparked widespread media attention in Switzerland, reigniting the debate over whether athletes should be permitted to display the national emblem when representing their country – a practice allowed in the Czech Republic, for instance.
The SIHF and the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property have reached a transitional agreement, following the decision by the Federal Administrative Court. The agreement allows the Swiss national hockey team to continue using the Swiss national emblem on its jerseys until the end of 2026, giving the SIHF time to prepare for this change.
Swiss lawmakers are working to amend the law, prompted in part by the recent case, in order to allow national sports teams to continue using the Swiss national coat of arms when representing the country. The top governing bodies of the Alpine confederation have expressed support for this legislative change.
Unless the law is amended, Switzerland’s national hockey team will be forced to alter its jerseys and cease using the national emblem.
The case at hand is a reminder of the broader tension between safeguarding national symbols and permitting their practical use, such as in international sports or other public contexts.
The use of the Czech state emblem by athletes representing the country is governed by the Act on the Use of the National Symbols of the Czech Republic (Act No.352/2001 Sb.). Specifically, Section 2(1)(u) of the law permits this practice. As a result, there is no need to be concerned about similar issues arising within the Czech Republic – at least until any changes are made to the relevant legislation.
