Company Registration

Intellectual Property Ownership Structure: New Zealand Vs Switzerland 

Intellectual Property (IP) Ownership structure defines the control, benefits from, and imposed rights over assets, such as patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets. This blog highlights the differences in Intellectual Property ownership structures for New Zealand and Switzerland.  

Comparing Switzerland and New Zealand highlights contrasting approaches: New Zealand emphasises simplicity, accessibility, and support for startups and SMEs. In contrast, Switzerland mainly focuses on precision, strong enforcement, and sophisticated structures, which reassure investors of stability for multinational companies. Post business setup in New Zealand and Switzerland, brand owners need to protect their IP.  

The structural differences across both jurisdictions (New Zealand and Switzerland) are designed by legal systems, economic priorities, and regulatory frameworks. Understanding these differences is important for businesses, investors, and innovators looking forward to commercializing, protecting, and strategically managing the intellectual property in diverse global markets.  

Introduction to Intellectual Property Ownership Structures 

The ownership structure of an intellectual property determines ownership, control, and the benefit derived from the intellectual assets like patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets. These structures are essential for controlling and enforcing the creation, protection, and exploitation of intellectual properties worldwide. Such ownership could be held by an individual, a company, a joint venture, or a holding structure, depending on the applicable law and the underlying business goals. All these are essential for preventing conflicts and ensuring that the intellectual property is properly optimized. 

The ownership structure of an Intellectual Property (IP) is affected by national law, the terms of employment, taxation principles, and international treaties. Some nations follow varying policies on the default terms of ownership, especially as they relate to the IP designed by an employee, contractor, or collaborator.  

Furthermore, organizations structure their IP ownership to facilitate licensing, cross-border business, and future growth plans. These factors become a significant issue when the organization operates in diverse jurisdictions or is a holder of global IP. 

An Overview of IP Law Frameworks in New Zealand and Switzerland 

New Zealand and Switzerland have well-designed IP law systems that align with international best practices. While New Zealand prioritizes accessibility and a regulatory regime, the Switzerland prioritizes intellectual property protection and enforcement, available because of the country’s advanced economy. 

Historical Development of IP Laws in New Zealand 

The evolution of intellectual property law in New Zealand cannot be dissociated from its historical association with the British empire. The first intellectual property laws were modelled on principles of English common law. This was followed by the enactment of patent and trademark legislation toward the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries.  

Gradually, New Zealand began to suit its inherited legislation to its own economic and technological requirements. The enactment of specialized legislation like the Patents Act and the Trade Marks Act indicated a move toward a formalized intellectual property system.  

During the latter decades of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first century, New Zealand upgraded its IP laws, bringing them more in line with international best practices. The presence in, and requirements of, such bodies as the World Trade Organization, as well as conformity with the TRIPS agreement, had immense impact upon legislative design. Today, intellectual property law in New Zealand strikes a fairer balance than previously between promoting innovation, supporting SMEs, and public access. 

Historical Development of IP Laws in Switzerland 

As Switzerland slowly became a hub of innovation, manufacturing, and research, so did the development of its IP laws. In the nineteenth century, Switzerland strongly resisted stringent patent protections, reflecting concerns that such laws might hinder industrial growth.  

However, it also became evident, as Swiss industries in the pharmaceuticals, engineering, and watchmaking lines flourished, that some form of intellectual property protection needed to be formally established. This led to the eventual patentability of patent, trademark, and design laws during the latter part of the nineteenth century and the early twentieth century. 

Throughout the twentieth century, Switzerland continued to fine-tune its intellectual property regime for high-value innovation and international trade. It was a very important contributor to the development of global intellectual property governance, and the home of the World Intellectual Property Organization.  

Swiss IP laws have attained a reputation for technical sophistication, strong mechanisms of enforcement, and clarity of ownership. Today, Switzerland’s intellectual property system reflects its long-standing commitment to the protection of innovation while fostering a competitive, research-oriented economy. Trademark registration in Switzerland is of utmost importance.  

Legal Foundations Governing Intellectual Property Ownership 

The legal framework addresses the ownership of intellectual properties. It is based on rules and regulations that govern the creation, management, and protection of intellectual properties. The framework is influenced by legislation and international accords that determine intellectual property ownership and obligations. 

Core IP Legislation and Regulatory Authorities in New Zealand 

The Intellectual Property Ownership in New Zealand primarily operates under the protection of a series of new statutes that regulate ownership of different types of IPs. 

 The major laws in this matter include: 

• The Patents Act of 2013 

• The Trade Marks Act of 2002 

• The Copyright Act of 1994 

• The Designs Act of 1953 

Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) is responsible for regulating the rules of Intellectual Property ownership and administration in New Zealand for the benefit of its citizens. The laws of New Zealand are also shaped by various international treaties addressing IP rules according to global circumstances. 

Core IP Legislation and Regulatory Authorities in Switzerland 

The intellectual property right of ownership in Switzerland is regulated through an extensive body of federal legislation. Key acts regulating intellectual property rights of ownership in this country include the Federal Act on Patents for Inventions, the Trade Mark Protection Act, the Copyright Act, and the Design Act.  

Ownership terms, scope of protection, and transfer of rights through these acts. The administration of intellectual property rights regulation under these acts is carried out by the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property. Its intellectual property rights system is highly harmonized with various international treaties and conventions. 

Types of Intellectual Property and Ownership Rules 

The rules governing the intellectual property ownership depends on its nature. For instance, patents, trademarks, copyrights, and design rights each have their set of rules governing their ownership. 

Patent Ownership Structures in New Zealand 

In New Zealand, patent right can be awarded to the inventor or to the person who is rightfully awarded the invention, such as an employer or assignee. The law regarding ownership is well defined under the Patents Act 2013. In employment situations, ownership of a patent is awarded to the employer for inventions arising from employment obligations.  

Joint ownership of a patent is also possible, and all owners enjoy the same rights unless other arrangements exist. A patent registration with the IPONZ verifies ownership and can be enforced. 

Patent Ownership Structures in Switzerland 

The law governing the ownership of Swiss patents focuses on precision and contractual clarity. Swiss law grants ownership of an invention to the inventor initially, which can be transferred either by operation of law or an agreement. Where employment relationships exist, inventions during the professional duties within employment period usually belongs to the employer, unless statutory provisions intervene.  

Assignment contract and licensing contract for patent rights under the Federal Act on Patents for inventions allow for corporate ownership structures. Co-ownership is possible under the Swiss law and is often specified in minute agreement particulars. Such patent ownership is easily registered with the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property, thereby ensuring that such ownership is legally recognized and given effect. 

Trademarks, Copyrights, and Design Rights Ownership Comparison 

There are distinct yet similar principles in New Zealand and Switzerland governing the rights for trademarks, copyrights, and design rights.  

Ownership of a trademark is usually granted to an applicant who registers the mark, typically a corporate entity, regardless of its creator. For a copyright, it generally vests in the author, with employers acquiring rights in works created in the course of employment. Similarly, ownership of design rights typically vests in the designer or commissioning party, contingent upon contractual terms.  

Although the operation in both countries (New Zealand and Switzerland) is in harmony with international minimum standards. Switzerland puts more emphasis on contractual precision, while New Zealand tries to maintain open and balanced frameworks of ownership. 

Corporate Intellectual Property Ownership Models 

The models of corporate ownership of intellectual property determine the ways in which firms organize, manage, and exploit their intellectual capital. These, in turn, depend on company size, growth strategy, and regulatory imperatives, and the wider legal and economic environment in which each country finds itself. 

IP Ownership in Startups and SMEs in New Zealand 

New Zealand startups and small to medium-sized enterprises usually use simple intellectual property ownership models that maximize clarity and cost efficiency. Intellectual property is often directly owned by the operating company rather than separate holding entities, simplifying the management and administrative burden.  

Founders usually assign early-stage-created intellectual property to the company to ensure single ownership and investor confidence. Employment and contractor agreements are essential to ensure ownership, particularly for software, product designs, and technical innovations. Once startups grow, licensing arrangements enable the commercialization of intellectual property without transferring ownership.  

New Zealand’s supportive regulatory environment and relatively accessible intellectual property system encourage SMEs to take an early interest in formalizing ownership, thereby protecting innovations, securing investment, and scaling operations both domestically and internationally. 

IP Ownership in Multinational and Holding Companies in Switzerland 

Switzerland is known for very complex intellectual property ownership structures, especially within the framework of multinational companies and holding firms. It is common practice for firms to concentrate intellectual property ownership in separate holding firms for easy management and licensing. Firms can then license their intellectual properties to operational subsidiaries based in different countries.  

Swiss laws provide an ideal environment for complex ownership and licensing of an intellectual property. There is a clear contractual regulation of the connection between holding firms and operational firms. The stable and reliable environment and high precision of Switzerland make it an ideal location for multinational firms requiring optimal management of valuable intellectual properties. 

Employment and Contractor-Based IP Ownership 

Job and contracts related rules of intellectual property ownership of an individual, or an organization is entitled to an intellectual property right when such a property is created in a professional environment. Such rules are critical in mitigating conflicts and encouraging compliance. 

Employee-Created Intellectual Property Rules in New Zealand 

In New Zealand, the intellectual property made by employees in the course of their employment can generally be considered the property of the company, as long as the intellectual property made by the employee fits into their normal course of employment. This, however, specifically applies to patents, as well as copyrighted material, made by employees using the resources of the company, or created by employees under an obligation of their employment.  

The Copyright Act 1994 and the Patents Act 2013 lie at the heart of the laws surrounding the principles of ownership of intellectual property made by employees. Employment contracts, however, include particular clauses for the acquisition of intellectual property. 

Employee and Contractor IP Ownership Rules in Switzerland 

In Switzerland, intellectual property rights are treated in a formalized manner in employment and contractor agreements. The intellectual property rights developed by an employee in an employment relationship tend to belong to his or her employer, especially in cases of technological inventions. In Swiss law, service inventions and free inventions are differentiated in this respect. In contractor cases, intellectual property rights do not automatically belong to the contracting employer, and this has to be clearly stated in written contracts. It is essential to note that this particular country favours formalization and predictability in intellectual property rights. 

Assignment, Licensing, and Transfer of Intellectual Property Rights 

There are assignment, licensing, and transfer processes that enable the commercial use of intellectual property rights separate from the initial creator or owner. These are legal processes that establish how ownership is transferred and how value is extracted from intellectual properties. 

IP Assignment and Licensing Practices in New Zealand 

In New Zealand, intellectual property rights can be assigned or licensed through a written contract in compliance with statutory requirements. Assignment entails a permanent transfer of ownership, and licensing entails a temporary use of the right; however, there will be no transfer of ownership. The Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand maintains a record of the assignment for clarity. Factors such as boundaries and time should always be clearly defined in a contract. The intellectual property law in New Zealand is conducive, as it allows for either local or worldwide licensing. 

IP Assignment and Licensing Practices in Switzerland 

Assignment and licensing of intellectual property in Switzerland are highly structured. Assignments, to be legally valid and enforceable, need to be documented clearly. Licensing is very common, especially across multinational corporate structures, for the purpose of Intellectual Property exploitation across boundaries. Swiss law places great emphasis on precision in contracts.  

Agreements are very careful in delineating rights to use, royalties, and limitations. Such registrations with the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property provide clarity and legal certainty to the parties. Therefore, such a strict regime facilitates secure and efficient intellectual property transactions even in a complex business environment. 

Taxation and Economic Considerations Affecting IP Ownership 

Taxation and economic policies have an influence on the location and nature of intellectual property ownership and administration. Corporation tax rates, treatment, and burden influence intellectual property ownership and the value of intellectual property assets. 

Tax Treatment of Intellectual Property in New Zealand 

In New Zealand, intellectual property is considered a capital asset category for tax treatment, and income generated from licensing or commercialization is typically liable for corporate income tax. Expenses incurred for the maintenance and development of intellectual property can be deductible under certain circumstances.  

Preferential intellectual property tax treatment, such as patent boxes, is not applied in New Zealand, leading to a tax environment that is considered neutral. This makes it easier to be transparent and straightforward rather than complex in tax treatment. When businesses consider intellectual property location, they tend not to be interested in tax treatment. 

Tax Treatment of Intellectual Property in Switzerland 

Switzerland’s tax privileges for intellectual property are often the driving factor in ownership decisions, especially for international groups of companies. Specific cantonal and federal regimes offer incentives for qualifying income resulting from intellectual property, provided they remain in line with international tax standards. Intellectual property holding structures are commonly utilized in order to efficiently manage royalty income.  

Switzerland’s economic stability, large network of tax treaties, and transparent regulatory framework add to its appeal as a jurisdiction for the ownership of intellectual property. Although the system requires careful structuring for appropriate tax planning, it encourages strategic intellectual property management within a compliant and stable environment. 

Dispute Resolution and Enforcement of IP Ownership Rights 

Dispute resolution and enforcement tools play an important role in protecting intellectual property ownership. They offer legal means of addressing infringement, defining rights, and complying with agreements, and they help ensure the value and integrity of intellectual property abroad. 

IP Enforcement Mechanisms and Courts in New Zealand 

New Zealand has a sophisticated legal system to secure the intellectual property rights. There are civil remedies like injunctions, damages, and accounts of profits, as well as criminal liability for specific offences relating to copyrights and trademarks. More important cases are heard by the High Court, but there are specialized tribunals like the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand for registration procedures.  

Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, like mediation, arbitration, etc., are preferred for the quick resolution of intellectual property disputes. New Zealand’s intellectual property enforcement system values accessibility and fairness. It ensures that both local and foreign rights owners can safeguard their intellectual property rights properly, striking a balance between promoting innovation and the interests of the public. 

IP Enforcement Mechanisms and Courts in Switzerland 

Switzerland has a sound and articulated system for the enforcement of intellectual property rights. Civil courts address infringement claims, providing remedies that include injunctions, damages, and destruction of infringing goods. In cases of counterfeiting and intentional infringement, criminal prosecution may be applicable.  

The Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property offers administrative support; however, judicial enforcement remains the centrepiece. Switzerland encourages alternative dispute resolution, including through arbitration and mediation mechanisms, in particular for cross-border IP disputes. 

Swiss courts are indeed renowned for precision, efficiency, and uniformity in interpreting the laws on intellectual property, reflecting the country’s strong emphasis on legal certainty. This framework enables rights holders to effectively protect and commercialize their intellectual property in Switzerland’s stable and predictable legal environment. 

Strategic Implications for Businesses Choosing Between New Zealand and Switzerland 

Determinants contributing to choosing New Zealand or Switzerland as a country for owning intellectual properties includes legal systems and their ability to enforce those rights, taxes, and environments for conducting business. 

Advantages and Challenges of Holding IP in New Zealand 

Protecting intellectual property in New Zealand has many advantages. There are no complexities in the laws and systems relevant to protecting IP. These laws keep pace with global standards, making it easy to register and enforce IP protection in New Zealand. This makes it very supportive for startups and SMEs in New Zealand. The laws and systems remain flexible to accommodate licensing and commercializing IP.  

However, there are a few drawbacks to protecting intellectual property in New Zealand. The government of New Zealand does not offer any tax advantages for protecting intellectual property. This may not support large multinational corporations aiming for tax efficiency. The size of the New Zealand market may remain small, which may not support the commercialization of IP due to less demand in the initial phase. 

Advantages and Challenges of Holding IP in Switzerland 

Switzerland provides a proper framework for owning intellectual properties, especially for multinational companies. Legal nuances, robust IP enforcement structures, and advanced IP administration infrastructure assure IP owners. Variations in taxation of income that can be traced to IP properties, along with political and economic stability, signify that Switzerland is the ultimate destination where IP can be held and licensed from different countries efficiently.  

However, there are increased administrative complexities as well as the requirement to design agreement structures to oversee IP generation in employees or contractors. Smaller-scale organizations are expected to incur relatively greater amounts in connection with compliance as well as IP administration than in other countries, such as New Zealand. Moreover, as Switzerland’s IP framework has wide acceptance worldwide, there are specific difficulties in accommodating variations in different states, in addition to alignment with international taxation principles. 

Future Trends in Intellectual Property Ownership Structures 

The structure of ownership of intellectual properties is transforming in response to digital innovation, global commercialization, and joint research efforts. The current trends that are emerging include more emphasis being put on licensing, joint ownership arrangements, and management systems that are technology-oriented in their approach. 

Emerging IP Policy Developments in New Zealand 

The IP policies of New Zealand are being updated to cope with the pace of technological change and global innovation trends. The current trend in IP in New Zealand involves improving access to IP for startups, enhancing digital copyright laws, and harmonizing IP laws within the global frameworks of TRIPS and WIPO.  

The current trend in IP in New Zealand involves improving access to IP for startups, improving digital copyright laws, and making IP laws within New Zealand conform to global frameworks of TRIPS and WIPO. New Zealand’s current IP trends and developments are shifting towards addressing AI and software inventions, which raises questions about ownership, authorship, and liability for AI and software inventions. New Zealand’s new laws are expected to simplify the process of IP registration and minimize administrative costs associated with IP. 

Emerging IP Policy Developments in Switzerland 

The Swiss government is constantly improving and adapting its intellectual property system to compete effectively globally. Currently, the latest intellectual property trends include improving patent system, updating copyright legislation, and facilitating cutting-edge research activities in highly acclaimed sectors like the pharmaceutical, biotech, and information and communication technologies industries. Additionally, the Swiss government is trying to devise different formats for the ownership and use of artificially created intellectual property by computers, thereby covering the issue of responsibility and licensing.  

At the same time, it follows strictly harmonized international conventions and fulfils the necessary conditions related to the evolving intellectual property structure of the EU and the WTO, thereby facilitating all intellectual property systems to work effectively and properly globally. 

Conclusion 

New Zealand and Switzerland offer different approaches to intellectual property ownership. Legal tradition, economic priorities, and the nature of innovation makes all the difference.  

New Zealand has an open, flexible regime suitable for startups and SMEs, which emphasizes clarity and simplicity and the support of domestic innovation. Switzerland offers very structured, precise, and enforcement-oriented systems of IP, which are appealing for international companies and complex, global portfolios. After registering your company in Switzerland, the next move for you is to secure your brand identity.  

Taxation, enforcement, and commercialization opportunities are some of the drivers underlying the choice of jurisdiction. Appreciation of these issues allows businesses to correctly position their intellectual property strategies in conjunction with their corporate goals and to maximize value creation with legal certainty, both nationally and internationally. For expert support, talk to our consultants at Enterslice.  

Frequently Asked Questions About IP Ownership New Zealand vs Switzerland