What evidence is needed to win a copyright dispute in EU courts?

In EU copyright disputes, a claimant typically must prove: (1) the work is protected by copyright: it meets the originality threshold (reflecting the author's intellectual creation, CJEU C-5/08 Infopaq standard); (2) the claimant is the author or exclusive rights-holder, often established by authorship presumption if your name appears on the work, or by an assignment chain; (3) the defendant's work infringes: substantial similarity plus access; (4) you have standing to bring the claim. For creation date proof (particularly important when authorship is disputed), a qualified electronic timestamp under eIDAS Art. 41 creates a legal presumption of the creation date without requiring further authentication. This is the single most legally efficient way to establish creation timeline.

How does a qualified electronic timestamp help in copyright litigation?

In copyright litigation, the party claiming infringement must establish that they created the work before the defendant. A qualified electronic timestamp provides: (1) a legal presumption under eIDAS Art. 41(2) that the timestamped document existed at the recorded date, meaning the defendant must disprove this, not the claimant prove it; (2) cryptographic integrity proof that the document was not altered after timestamping; (3) a record from an independent, accredited QTSP on the EU Trusted List, and courts recognise this as objective third-party evidence. Combined with version history (git commits, design file versions) and internal communications, a qualified timestamp is the foundational evidence of creation date in any copyright proceeding.

What is the originality requirement for copyright protection in Switzerland?

In Switzerland, copyright under the URG/LDA (Urheberrechtsgesetz / Loi sur le droit d'auteur) protects literary and artistic works that are individual creations, i.e., they reflect the author's individual creative choices and are distinguishable from other works. The threshold is relatively accessible: individual expression in photographs, software, architecture, and artistic works is sufficient. The Federal Supreme Court (BGer/TF) applies a functional analysis: whether the work shows the author's personality through creative choices. There is no registration requirement; copyright arises automatically at creation. A qualified electronic timestamp from a ZertES-accredited provider documents both the date of creation and the exact content of the work.

Can I sue for copyright infringement in Switzerland if the infringer is in the EU?

Yes. Swiss courts have jurisdiction over copyright infringement claims where: the infringing activity causes harm in Switzerland, or the infringer has assets or operations in Switzerland. For EU-based infringers, you can also sue in EU member state courts, which can often be advantageous if the CJEU's originality standard and available remedies are more favourable. Switzerland and the EU are both members of the Berne Convention and WIPO Copyright Treaty, so your copyright is protected in both jurisdictions. Cross-border enforcement is most practical through specialist IP lawyers in both jurisdictions. Swiss-issued qualified electronic timestamps are accepted in EU proceedings because they meet eIDAS technical standards.

What is the statute of limitations for copyright infringement in Switzerland?

Under Swiss law, claims for copyright infringement have a limitation period of 3 years from when the claimant knew or should have known of the infringement and the infringer (relative limitation), with an absolute limitation of 10 years from the infringement act (Art. 60 OR, applicable to IP by reference). For ongoing infringements, the limitation period runs from the last infringing act. In EU member states, limitation periods vary: Germany (3 years), France (3 years), Italy (5 years). For registering copyright disputes: preserve all evidence, including the work itself, creation date proof (qualified timestamps), correspondence showing infringement, and evidence of damages, starting from the moment you discover infringement. Evidence of early creation date is most valuable in disputes that arise years after the original work was created.

Legal Compliance

Urheberrechtliche Beweise: Was EU- und Schweizer Gerichte akzeptieren (2026)

Swiss Trust Layer Legal Team · Trust & Compliance

16. Juni 2026 8 Min. LesenZuletzt aktualisiert 8. September 2026

Zurück zum Blog

In short

Nicht alle digitalen Beweise haben in EU- und Schweizer Urheberrechtsverfahren gleiches Gewicht. Nur QTSP-ausgestellte qualifizierte Zeitstempel tragen gesetzliche Vermutung — hier ist, was Gerichte tatsächlich akzeptieren und warum.

Im Januar 2026 ubernahm ein IP-Anwalt in Zurich einen Fall, der auf den ersten Blick uberzeugend wirkte. Eine in Bern ansassige UX-Forscherin hatte ein proprietares Interaktionsmuster in einem ausfuhrlichen Methodikpapier dokumentiert und fand es acht Monate spater nahezu wortidentisch in einer Patentanmeldung eines Konkurrenten wieder. Die Forscherin besass E-Mails und Entwurfs-PDFs, die bis zu 18 Monate zuruckreichten. Keines davon trug einen qualifizierten elektronischen Zeitstempel. Nach dem Vollbeweis-Standard der schweizerischen ZPO war die Beweislage schwach. Der Rechtsstreit wurde fur 12 Prozent des ursprunglich angestrebten Betrags verglichen.

Wenn ein Urheberrechtsstreit vor Gericht geht, entscheidet oft nicht, wer im Recht ist, sondern wer es beweisen kann. Dieser Leitfaden erklart, welche Beweise EU- und Schweizer Gerichte als Urheberrechtsbeweise akzeptieren und warum qualifizierte Zeitstempel zum entscheidenden Faktor in der modernen IP-Prozessfuhrung geworden sind.

Schützen Sie Ihre Arbeit mit Swiss Trust Layer AG

Versiegeln Sie Ihr geistiges Eigentum mit einem gerichtsfesten e-Siegel, unterstützt von Swisscom Trust Services.

Demo buchen

Ähnliche Artikel