The Swiss Federal Adminstrative Court held in a judgment dated 12 April 2010 that the trade mark "Madonna" (see above) cannot be registered in Switzerland for various goods (perfume, clothing, jewellery, watches etc) because it is against public morale ("sittenwidrig").

MADONNA was the term for Maria of Nazareth, mother of Jesus, a figure revered in particular by Roman-Catholics (there is a whole passage on the theological importance of Madonna in the judgment). The religious feelings of practicing Roman-Catholics - the Court notes that in particular in the Italian speaking part of Switzerland, 75% of the population adheres to the Catholic faith - were hurt if MADONNA was used as a commercial sign to identify the source of goods. That MADONNA had other meanings - it is an Italian name, and obviously, the name of a well-known pop-singer - was irrelevant as long as the theological meaning was clearly recognizable (if you search for MADONNA on Google image search, the first pages of hits are all images of the pop-singer...).

What always strikes me as bizarre in these cases is the argument that the religious feelings would be hurt by the "use as a commercial sign", and the conclusion that therefore, the trade mark should not be registered. Nothing bars the applicant from using MADONNA on his clothes in Switzerland. If protection as a trade mark is refused, others may use the same term as well (absent an unfair competition claim). So, presumably, the sign MADONNA will be used more often, not less often, as a commercial sign if trade mark protection is refused. The more logical argumentation would be to say that the government should not grant exclusive rights over religious symbols (if you want to bar such applications at all), no?