Apple sues Swatch over 'Tick different' trademark

Posted:
in General Discussion edited April 2017
Swiss watch conglomerate Swatch is again under fire for allegedly capitalizing on successful Apple marketing. The watchmaker is being taken to court for emblazoning "Tick different" on certain watch models, a phrase Apple claims is a play on its 1990s "Think Different" ad campaign.




Lodged last week, Apple's complaint is being adjudicated by the Swiss Federal Administrative Court, reports Watson. In order to successfully argue its case, Apple will have to prove that at least 50 percent of consumers associate "Think Different" with Apple branding.

Apple is being represented by Zurich law firm Lenz & Staehelin, which filed a concurrent, but unsuccessful, complaint with the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property.

Responding to Apple's accusations, Swatch CEO Nick Hayek said any similarity between the two campaigns is coincidental. Hayek asserts "Tick different" has its roots in a Swatch campaign from the '80s that carried the phrase "Always different, always new."

Further confusing matters, Swatch applied for and was granted a U.S. trademark for "Tick different" some two years ago. With a priority date of July 16, 2015, the mark was officially published in October 2016. The USPTO recently granted an extension to the mark in January. Swatch holds the same trademark in Switzerland.

While the mark covers a number of potential applications, Swatch currently uses "Tick different" to distinguish Bellamy, a quartz wristwatch with built-in Visa NFC payment functionality. The company leveraged Bellamy to break into the Chinese mobile payments market in 2015, beating both Apple Pay and Apple Watch by four months.

Dreamed up by longtime Apple advertising agency TBWA\Chiat\Day when the tech giant was struggling, the "Think Different" campaign ran from 1997 through 2002. Initially called "crap" by late co-founder Steve Jobs, the now iconic series matched the slogan with black-and-white photos of famous visionaries. Kicking off the ad blitz was the award-winning "To the crazy ones" TV spot, which featured a voice-over by Richard Dreyfuss. Many ad industry insiders consider "Think Different" one of the most influential campaigns in recent history.

For Hayek and Swatch, "Tick different" follows a string of controversial moves made since Apple announced Apple Watch -- potential competition to Swatch's core business -- in 2014.

In 2015, Swatch won a trademark on the phrase "one more thing," words Jobs would often use to preface surprise announcements at keynote events. Swatch later said the catchphrase was inspired by the TV show "Columbo" and would be used to market a collection of film noir watches.

The watchmaker also attempted to block Apple's UK trademark application for "iWatch," saying it was too similar to Swatch's "iSwatch" mark. Some believe Swatch filed "iSwatch" as a pre-emptive strike against Apple's inevitable smartwatch rollout. The UK Intellectual Property Office ultimately sided with Swatch last year, long after Apple decided to market its wearable under the Apple Watch moniker.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 51
    dronydrony Posts: 2unconfirmed, member
    haha brillant
  • Reply 2 of 51
    robjnrobjn Posts: 280member
    Apple has been running ads on Instagram and a few weeks ago Swatch started shamelessly running almost identical ads with the words "your move". Recognizing that they had copied the Apple ad, I took the words as being directed towards Apple.

    So it does not seem "coincidental" at all. It seems they are trying to go toe to toe with Apple in order to market themselves as an Apple competitor. I think this is because they have been hurt by Apple Watch sales.
    calimejsricjbdragonwatto_cobraRacerhomieX
  • Reply 3 of 51
    JanNLJanNL Posts: 327member
    drony said:
    haha brillant
    Or cheap... It's clear Swatch is keeping a close eye on Apple (to say the least).
    edited April 2017 calidysamoriawatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 51
    Apple won't win this.
    spice-boydysamoriaSpamSandwichevilutionclemynxnetrox
  • Reply 5 of 51
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,842moderator
    Not that it matters, but in a universe where justice prevails above technicalities and court procedure, Apple would need only stand before the judge and say, "awe, come on, now!" and then rest its case.  In fact, the portrayal of such a universe, with Apple using the same line in front of a judge in a whole series of previous real life cases, and prevailing every single time, might make an entertaining series of underground Apple advertisements.  Well, as long as Apple trademarked, "awe, come on, now!" before someone else did.

    Meanwhile, back in our own imperfect universe, time, ironically, will run out on the watch company long before the bell tolls for Apple.  Enjoy your brief tick in the spotlight, Swatch.  The world will soon enough be... ticking different.
    edited April 2017 watto_cobraRoyfb
  • Reply 6 of 51
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,718member
    Apple won't win this.
    It depends what the definition of 'this' is ... ;)

    I'd argue Apple already 'won' if we discuss profits in the watch market, smart or otherwise.  This suit is just good free advertising for Apple IMHO.  Lots of people out there have been fooled into believing the Watch is a failure.  The news articles about this suit will by extension have to elaborate in more detail and perhaps a lot more people will learn Watch has actually decimated all opposition in profits.
    radarthekatmejsrictobianjbdragonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 51
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,842moderator
    MacPro said:
    Apple won't win this.
    It depends what the definition of 'this' is ... ;)

    I'd argue Apple already 'won' if we discuss profits in the watch market, smart or otherwise.  This suit is just good free advertising for Apple IMHO.  Lots of people out there have been fooled into believing the Watch is a failure.  The news articles about this suit will by extension have to elaborate in more detail and perhaps a lot more people will learn Watch has actually decimated all opposition in profits.
    I totally agree.  Apple is the one 'ticking' different, bringing a whole new paradigm to the game of wrist wearables.  There's really just three ways to enter an established market.  Come in at the high end, come in at the low end, or establish a whole new paradigm.  The high end of the traditional watch market is all about perceived value.  There's nothing a $200k mechanical watch can do, in a utilitarian sense, that the cheapest smartphone cannot do.  It's all about perceived value, as though diamonds or gold or platinum have any real utility strapped to a person's wrist.  It's the human imagined reality at work.  The low end is never where Apple joins the party, and anyway the wristwatch is primed for disruption through a paradigm shift.  And so that's what smartwatches do.  They will eventually serve five major roles in our lives.  Out on the wrist and not in the pocket, they will be our recorders, notifiers, access grantors, directors, and controllers, if not disrupted themselves in these roles by other wearable or imbedded tech.  

    They will record us and aspects of our environment and our interactions with it.

    They will notify us, first line of alert and response, to everything and anything of importance to us.

    They will authenticate us in order to grant access to our workplaces, our hotel rooms and homes, our cars, payments, etc.

    They will direct us to our hotel rooms, theater or sporting event seats, locations on a map, running routes, anywhere and anytime we need direction.

    They will let us control our environment; lights, air temperature, appliances, entertainment, computers, anything where we want or need to remotely control any aspect of our lives.  

    All of these functions are more convenient out on the wrist or body.  Smartphones, or pocket information and connectivity hubs or whatever we later decide to rename the appliance we now refer to as a Smartphone, will continue to be marginalized, to those roles it is best suited; consumption of dense information sources, for example.  Tick different, indeed.  Only, it's not Swatch that deserves the right to convey the true and full meaning of that phrase; it's a company, like Apple, with a far reaching ecosystem and technology chops that can make the paradigm shift actually happen. 
    edited April 2017 tobianredraider11watto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 51
    spice-boyspice-boy Posts: 1,450member
    The target audience for this Swatch device is too young to remember or ever heard of the "Think Different" campaign. I understand Apple trying to protect it's technology, patents and such but this is a waste of time and money. 
    buzdotsteaearlegreyhotavon b7
  • Reply 9 of 51
    Good to see Swatch's executives acting like petulant children. Enjoy it while it lasts. 
    igorskywatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 51
    :D Ha ha, looks like Apple is 'Ticked Off'!
    buzdotsThe_Martini_Catwatto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 51
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 4,297member
    MacPro said:
    Apple won't win this.
    It depends what the definition of 'this' is ... ;)

    I'd argue Apple already 'won' if we discuss profits in the watch market, smart or otherwise.  This suit is just good free advertising for Apple IMHO.  Lots of people out there have been fooled into believing the Watch is a failure.  The news articles about this suit will by extension have to elaborate in more detail and perhaps a lot more people will learn Watch has actually decimated all opposition in profits.
    So what are Apple's profits with Watch? I'd be curious how you know since Apple doesn't disclose profits by product. And since when does selling more of something mean that something is better? Toyota sells more cars than BMW; does that mean BMW is losing? 
    zroger73avon b7
  • Reply 12 of 51
    tobiantobian Posts: 148member
    I think that Swatch underestimated the approach of smartwatches, they thought apples will look rather like a tiny computer, than a jewel device. Oh, mistake.. watches behemoth rings the alert. It reminds me when Nokia realised what iPhone really is..
    radarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 51
    zroger73zroger73 Posts: 787member
    spice-boy said:
    The target audience for this Swatch device is too young to remember or ever heard of the "Think Different" campaign. I understand Apple trying to protect it's technology, patents and such but this is a waste of time and money. 
    I remember Swatch being a thing in the late-80s. All the cool kids had them. I was given a Swatch Day Off exactly like the one in the photo in 1990. I still have it and it still works almost three decades later. After that, I wore only Fossil watches until I bought an Apple Watch about a year ago. I've not given Swatch a second thought in decades, but I don't hang out at malls anymore, either. :)
    spice-boyradarthekat
  • Reply 14 of 51
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member
    Apple won't win this.
    They better not. This is frivolous. There's no harm to Apple with this. 
  • Reply 15 of 51
    Apple has a very good case.

    As someone on 9to5Mac pointed out, Think Different is actually grammatically incorrect. It should be Think Differently. So for Swatch to use the phrase Tick Different they are making the same grammatical error.
    radarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 51

    There is no way Apple wins this.  Is their argument that they now exclusively own the grammatically quirky "[verb] different" phrase?  If they have dozens of other versions rather than "Think Different" maybe they would have a chance, but they've only ever used that one.

    Plus based on my very spotty, non-professional understanding of Swiss IP law, they tend to be very literal/strict in their rulings.  "Tick" is completely different from "Think."  Case dismissed.

    edited April 2017 freshmaker
  • Reply 17 of 51
    dysamoria said:
    Apple won't win this.
    They better not. This is frivolous. There's no harm to Apple with this. 
    Thank you, Swatch PR. 
    igorskyericthehalfbeeStrangeDayszroger73watto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 51
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Blood-sucking ticks.
    teaearlegreyhotwatto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 51
    igorskyigorsky Posts: 752member
    Apple has a very good case.

    As someone on 9to5Mac pointed out, Think Different is actually grammatically incorrect. It should be Think Differently. So for Swatch to use the phrase Tick Different they are making the same grammatical error.

    This is 100% correct.  In fact it's similar to an example used in Apple's lawsuit against Samsung.  Samsung used a flower icon for their photo app, just like Apple.  And Apple's attorney's argued that Apple used an arbitrary image for its icon, so for Samsung to use a very similar image indicates a clear intent to copy.

    Bottom line is that this is a very blatant attempt on Swatch's part.
    edited April 2017 teaearlegreyhotwatto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 51
    spice-boy said:
    The target audience for this Swatch device is too young to remember or ever heard of the "Think Different" campaign. I understand Apple trying to protect it's technology, patents and such but this is a waste of time and money. 

    Phil Schiller is trying to justify his job in branding.   The "Tick Different" may confuse customers into thinking an analog clock is somehow the same as an Apple device with a one-day battery.
    spice-boy
Sign In or Register to comment.