Apple applies for 'iWatch' trademark ownership in Japan

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 44
    bdkennedy1bdkennedy1 Posts: 1,459member


    I would love to see Apple clothesline all of these rumors if "iWatch" is actually the TV set.

  • Reply 22 of 44
    stelligentstelligent Posts: 2,680member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mhikl View Post





    stelligent, I agree that the use of 'brilliant' doesn't appear to fit well within the sphere of common advertising; however, there have been many choices taken in the industry that have come to symbolize a company in the eye of the consumer, and for which criticism has been an issue. 'Think Different' is one that has raised argument on grammatical terms, yet came to symbolize a well known company.



    The use of adjectives such as 'brilliant' for hyperbole as a rhetorical device is part of English language humour. Figurative language is usually introduced in middle school, but its practice depends upon the skill and interest of the language teacher and the student's interest in reading. Such skills not learned and practiced early enough in life may be confused when come upon as a mature adult.



    On the other hand, I may not have phrased my use of the word well; image though I do believe its use has worked out splendidly, if not brilliantly, for our favourite fruit company.



    As originally posted was not the intended corrected version. iPad typing, yuck.


    If you are British, I sort of get your point except that the Queen's use of "brilliant" is euphemistic rather than hyperbolic. Anyhow, my remark didn't deserve your brilliant treatise in response ;-)

  • Reply 23 of 44
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member
    lerxt wrote: »
    The above guy has been posting all over the Internet. I wonder if iW@tch with an @, is the same as iWatch, according to patent law?

    Trademark not patent and yes sometimes it can be that specific. Just as it is can specific to a market.
  • Reply 24 of 44
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member
    chandra69 wrote: »

    [SIZE=12px]Did not really expect <span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Arial, sans-serif;line-height:20px;">Founder & Creative Director House of VOILA  </span>
    [/SIZE]<strong style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18.1875px;background-color:rgb(241,241,241);"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;line-height:1.231;">Roger Khemlani</span>
    </strong>
    [SIZE=12px]<span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Arial, sans-serif;line-height:20px;"> is spamming internet like this. Must be eligible for executive position at Samsung. </span>
    [/SIZE]<img alt="1devil.gif" id="user_yui_3_10_0_1_1372679216173_1229" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies/1devil.gif" style="line-height:1.231;" name="user_yui_3_10_0_1_1372679216173_1229">

    As if his spamming means anything. He should, and hopefully has, filed his objection with the deciding party and if they agree they won't grant Apple's application. If they disagree then he has to get over it.
  • Reply 25 of 44
    19831983 Posts: 1,225member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mhikl View Post



    The use of 'i' by Apple was and continues to be a brilliant strategy by Apple. It could have gone with any letter of the alphabet, an 'a' for Apple, or 'm' for Macintosh. Were FaxSam to have copied Apple with a slew of apparatuses using 'i' after 'i' had come to be identified with Apple would be seen as desperation by even the usual trolls. 'j' or '@' or an 'image' symbol would be adjuncts anyone might have tried or try today. Regardless, the idea of a preceding lower case symbol, the 'i' in this regard, just says 'Apple' product to most people. (Apple could even have used an 'i' turned sideways, still verbally referring to it as an 'i' had it known that others would have been trying to use its identifier as a way of getting money through the courts.)



    Regardless, 'i' is an identifiable asset of Apple culture and it has been a brilliant stroke. The problem is that others just lack the creative spirit that is 'Apple' nature.



    I would suggest the great facsimilating machine patent a 'turd'-like symbol. It would be appropriate and at least be immediately identifiable with FacsimileSam and its equal brilliant method of thinking from the water closet.



    Grammar fixed.


    The first Apple product to use the "i" suffix was the iMac which I believe Steve said meant Internet Macintosh. But still, a great marketing idea, because as you say here, any product that has that lower-case "i" in its name is automatically thought of as an Apple related product even if it isn't. 

  • Reply 26 of 44
    andysolandysol Posts: 2,506member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Chandra69 View Post


     


     


    Did not really expect Founder & Creative Director House of VOILA  Roger Khemlani  is spamming internet like this. Must be eligible for executive position at Samsung. image



    Those are quite possibly the ugliest watches I've ever seen.


     


  • Reply 27 of 44
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,697member
    Seems to me Apple should rush out and simultaneously apply for patents everywhere on any new product well ahead of the leaks ... Just a suggestion there Tim :D
  • Reply 28 of 44
    mhiklmhikl Posts: 471member
    stelligent wrote: »
    If you are British, I sort of get your point except that the Queen's use of "brilliant" is euphemistic rather than hyperbolic. Anyhow, my remark didn't deserve your brilliant treatise in response ;-)

    stelligent, neither British nor American am I; though either I would proudly call myself if that dang ice age some are predicting in the next twenty years buries my nation in miles, er, kilometres of ice.

    I suspect we both like to yap and write, to the chagrin of many. Sadly my next reincarnation predicts me coming back a member of the canine species. If I have any choice in the matter, it will be as a Corgi, (& not because the Queen has them, mine is a rescue little 'b')* as they are expressively talkative and clever at food acquisition, legally or otherwise.

    * the Q is on her last Corgis. No one in her line likes the damned things and she knows that when the mirror is pressed to her dead lips, Charles will already be out the door, herding the dogs down the palace stairs, rifle in hand, a disparate grin on his face. Anne will be heard, muttering under breath, "Go for it boy". :smokey:
  • Reply 29 of 44
    suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,819member
    [SIZE=10pt]The trademark iw@ch (phonetically IWATCH) belongs to Intertime (FE) Holdings Ltd, Hong Kong; the internationally famous manufacturer of VOILA Watches & iw@ch as per Japanese Trademark Certificate 4400665 dated July 14, 2000.[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=10pt]Apple would need to seek permission from Intertime before commencing any trade.[/SIZE]

    Never heard of it. Just like I have never heard of Proview.
  • Reply 30 of 44
    suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,819member
    Did you seek permission from Apple in 2000 before copying their iNaming scheme?

    You've laid a trap
    And now it's sprung
    Call up your lawyer
    It has begun.
  • Reply 31 of 44


    Everyone assumes iWatch is an actual wrist watch. What if iWatch is a TV initiative? Or a content delivery service? We already know there are issues with using the iTV name so it isn't out the realm of possibility.


     


    Cook said wearable computing was an area of interest for "exploration" but he also said young people don't wear watches and it would take something special to get them to wear something on their body.


     


    I am not saying that it isn't a watch..... but it could be a red herring. Just look at all the Android OEMs and Google falling all over themselves to launch me too products even before Apple ships just so they look less like copycats. What a coupe it would be to have them all building crappy watches just to bring out some other product called iWatch that has nothing to do with a watch!!!

  • Reply 32 of 44
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleTechSpot View Post


    Cook said wearable computing was an area of interest for "exploration" but he also said young people don't wear watches and it would take something special to get them to wear something on their body.



     


    Ha.  For the young:  Bluetooth iWatch body piercings :)


     


    Or perhaps something like the  wearable jewelry phone concept that IBM showed many years ago:


     


  • Reply 33 of 44
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 3,932member
    Just had a thought. You recall that Apple settled a trademark dispute with Swiss National Railways over the design of the Clock app. It settled it quickly, quietly, and amicably. What if this came up as a result of dealings with something else Switzerland is famous for: watches. Maybe Apple was working with the likes of Piaget, Patek Phillipe, or Rolex to co-brand a really fine timepiece that includes computer functions as well as the usual high-end bling factor?
  • Reply 34 of 44
    mactelmactel Posts: 1,275member


    I still see this as a niche product.  I'm hoping I'm wrong.  I might buy one instead of an iPod Nano but I don't see more need than that for this rumored device.


     


    If it is a full blown iOS device unlike the AppleTV and iPod Nano, then there could be gaming potential in conjunction with the AppleTV as a Nintedo style controller. Look  to Apple cutting out Nike+ with this type of device.  I'd imagine that Apple would fully support NFC with this too.


     


    Anyway, I'm looking for something more than an iPod in functionality that justifies and new product line. 

  • Reply 35 of 44
    mactelmactel Posts: 1,275member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleTechSpot View Post


    Everyone assumes iWatch is an actual wrist watch. What if iWatch is a TV initiative? Or a content delivery service? We already know there are issues with using the iTV name so it isn't out the realm of possibility.


     


    Cook said wearable computing was an area of interest for "exploration" but he also said young people don't wear watches and it would take something special to get them to wear something on their body.


     


    I am not saying that it isn't a watch..... but it could be a red herring. Just look at all the Android OEMs and Google falling all over themselves to launch me too products even before Apple ships just so they look less like copycats. What a coupe it would be to have them all building crappy watches just to bring out some other product called iWatch that has nothing to do with a watch!!!



     


    Wow, you're absolutely right!  I never thought of that.  I would believe what you're saying over Apple coming out with a watch form factor.  After seeing Google Glass demoed I finally got the use of that product and would see Apple making a watch as a step back unless it were a successor to the iPod line. 

  • Reply 36 of 44
    rcfarcfa Posts: 1,124member
    [SIZE=10pt]The trademark iw@ch (phonetically IWATCH) belongs to Intertime (FE) Holdings Ltd, Hong Kong; the internationally famous manufacturer of VOILA Watches & iw@ch as per Japanese Trademark Certificate 4400665 dated July 14, 2000.[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=10pt]Apple would need to seek permission from Intertime before commencing any trade.[/SIZE]

    No, they wouldn't. The "@" is not an "a".

    Trademark law is not that simplistic.
    The same mark can be held by different companies if it's totally different markets, e.g. Apple might have a hard time preventing P&G from offering new "female hygiene" products called Ipad,
    But at the same time Samsung couldn't just offer a tablet called 1Pad because even though it would be pronounced One Pad it looks to the consumer potentially confusingly similar to iPad.
    Looks, pronunciation, product market overlap, etc. all play a role. And something that's a generic term nobody can protect.
  • Reply 37 of 44
    bestkeptsecretbestkeptsecret Posts: 4,264member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Roger Khemlani View Post


    The trademark iw@ch (phonetically IWATCH) ...



     


    Shouldn't that phonetically be I-wat-the-rate-of-ch?


     


     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post





    Never heard of it. Just like I have never heard of Proview.


     


     


    Funnily enough, my dad bought a nameless brand home theatre system for a throw-away price that he used for maybe 2 months before moving on to better stuff. Recently I found it in his house and that was a 'Proview' brand home theatre system!

  • Reply 38 of 44


    Nothing here to do with any patent law, its what trademark laws are based upon; as both marks are (phonetically) identical there is a clear chance of confusion which constitutes an infringement of a trademark.

  • Reply 39 of 44


    Nothing here to do with any patent law, its what trademark laws are based upon; as both marks are (phonetically) identical there is a clear chance of confusion which constitutes an infringement of a trademark.

  • Reply 40 of 44
    pendergastpendergast Posts: 1,358member
    [SIZE=10pt]Nothing here to do with any patent law, its what trademark laws are based upon; as both marks are (phonetically) identical there is a clear chance of confusion which[/SIZE] constitutes an [SIZE=10pt]infringement of a trademark.[/SIZE]

    You know as a well as I do that there's more to it than that, including whether you've successfully maintained your mark. A quick search yielded no such product that is currently made, however.

    You don't need to astro turf here. The courts will likely decide if you file an objection.
Sign In or Register to comment.