Swatch insists 'one more thing' trademark connected to Columbo, not Apple

Posted:
in Apple Watch edited September 2015
Swatch's Swiss trademark on the term "one more thing" is really a reference to a line from the TV show Columbo, according to a spokesperson for the watchmaker.




The company trademarks all of its model and collection names in different categories, the representative told Techradar. Some of these names revolve around themes, like movies or culinary dishes.

"In this case, the name was inspired by inspector Columbo's citation 'Just one more thing' -- obviously our design team plans to launch a collection inspired by the 'Film Noir'," the person claimed.

Swatch doesn't currently have a watch or collection going by the Film Noir name. It could conceivably be developing one, since it only applied for the trademark in November.

"One more thing" was also a phrase regularly used by Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, however, as a way of introducing important items during press events. Swatch has also sought a trademark on the phrase "Tick different," a play on Apple's defunct "Think Different" slogan.

Although Swatch has yet to step into the world of smartwatches, it may be trying to draw the attention of people who would otherwise consider an Apple Watch. Many of Swatch's products are less expensive, but the gap is small enough that some people may be willing to spend more on Apple's offerings for the extra functionality.

In May of 2014 Swatch revealed that it was objecting to Apple's attempt to trademark the name "iWatch" in several countries, on the basis that it sounded too similar to its own "iSwatch" brand. Apple ultimately decided against using the iWatch label, though it's not clear whether that's because of Swatch, as the latter company publicly stated that it had no plans to bring Apple to court. Several other products use the Apple-first naming motif, chiefly the Apple TV and Apple Music.
«1345

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 82
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    Sure, Swatch, keep telling yourself that.


    [VIDEO]
  • Reply 2 of 82

    Obviously, They are lying about the slogan. Makes you wonder what else they are lying about. 

  • Reply 3 of 82
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,453member

    Wow. I'm the first to say Steve Jobs didn't originate "Just One More Thing", but Swatch is really delusional here. Especially with their "Tick Different" trademark.

     

    Moreover, Columbo's use was in the context of asking one more devastating question, after weakening his suspect with a bunch of irritating softball questions. Is that really what Swatch is planning to do, or are they planning on introducing big new features -- the context with which Jobs used it.

  • Reply 4 of 82
    roakeroake Posts: 668member
    Why does it even matter? Apple doesn't seem to care.
  • Reply 5 of 82

    Wasn't the Apple TV named so because there is a big UK broadcaster called ITV already, iirc everything else prior to this was i- prefixed

  • Reply 6 of 82
    am8449am8449 Posts: 343member
    I think the iThing name has run its course, and am glad Apple has gone with Apple Thing.

    To me, the i no longer sounds fresh and interesting.
  • Reply 7 of 82
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,322member
    First of all, Just One More Thing is contextually way out in left field compared to One More Thing. Secondly, Tick Different should end all doubt.
  • Reply 8 of 82
    mcarlingmcarling Posts: 1,106member

    Swatch's position is complete nonsense.  Trademarks are industry specific.  For example, Apple Computer, Inc. (now renamed Apple, Inc.) and Apple Music, Inc. (the Beatles' company) only had a trademark clash when Apple Computer, Inc. started to do music.  Columbo has nothing to do with the watch industry and is therefore completely irrelevant.  All trademark law disputes are judged primarily on the basis of whether or not consumers would be confused about the origin of a product.

  • Reply 9 of 82
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,463member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

    Pathetic that a once respected brand like Swatch would steep to these lows.

     

    It confirms that the Apple Watch is a devestating blow to the Watch industry.




    I think the term is “Whistling past the graveyard.” As is usual with Apple product introductions the intrenched members of the targeted market start off by welcoming Apple to the fray and warning them that their market is very difficult (see Spotify). Once the Apple product begins to gain traction we start getting the ‘toy’ and ‘real work’ comments (remember Ballmer). The real nasty part starts when the Apple product starts to eat away at their profits and market share. This is usually followed by copycat product introductions at significantly lower price points (see Samsung). Finally the outright bare knuckle brawl of denigrating Apple customers as members of a religion or cult (Samsung again). As profits continue to shrink we start hearing the CEOs talk about refocusing their company and tapping into emerging markets (Dell). When the buyout or merger finally happens the former CEOs write books about how Apple is an evil entity out to enslave us all. 

     

    Then Apple sets its sights on the next market it intends to enter. 

  • Reply 10 of 82

    Swatch reminds me of Donald Trump.  Obviously run by a petulant boy that works harder at tweaking other people than actually delivering.  Promise a lot, deliver a little.  For them -- failure is an option.  

     

    A good read is http://www.macworld.com/article/2975047/gadgets/swatch-ceo-needs-to-stop-talking-and-start-shipping.html

  • Reply 11 of 82
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    roake wrote: »
    Why does it even matter? Apple doesn't seem to care.

    It speaks to the potential that Swatch may be out of ideas and/or scared of the wrist-worn CE market and/or of the Apple Watch.

    adm1 wrote: »
    Wasn't the Apple TV named so because there is a big UK broadcaster called ITV already, iirc everything else prior to this was i- prefixed

    I don't understand your question. The Apple TV wasn't "named so" because of the BBC, only that Apple couldn't use iTV in any market where iTV was a registered trademark, which I don't think included the USA or most of the world. Note that it's possible to split a branding name to abide by nationally recognized trademarks. Apple does this with AirPort in Japan which is trademarked by I-O Data so that same product gets the unique AirMac designation.

    Furthermore, I don't think it was ever trademarked as iTV and can't recall any attempt by Apple to trademark iTV. In fact, the only reason we know of the internal iTV codename was because Steve did a very unusual thing by introducing an incomplete Apple TV product that still didn't have a branding.

    But all that is besides the point, what does the Apple TV branding have to do with Swatch Group's uncreative slogans?
  • Reply 13 of 82
    danielswdanielsw Posts: 905member

    Apple really doesn't have  to "disrupt" any industry in order to be incredibly successful with most all of its products. And "too bad" for those industries which happen to be disrupted as a matter of course.

     

    Steve very wisely set Apple's course back around the time when OS X was first introduced and he said that the company was betting its future on it.

     

    The resulting "ecosystem" has grown continuously since then. And though many bemoan it as a "walled garden", the many millions of denizens of such are realizing the ever-growing benefits of life inside those walls—walls which are merely virtual.

     

    I love my Apple Watch for all of the new conveniences it has brought already to my life, and for the promise of many more in future versions.

     

    Apple products will never be for everyone, and "market share" always has been and will be meaningless for us, and, I believe, for Apple, because what's important for all of us and for all future "switchers" is that Apple stays true to is purposes and never sits on its laurels.

  • Reply 14 of 82
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,526member
    Since when are Columbo episodes considered film noir?
  • Reply 15 of 82

    No comment on the look of Apple watches.... (primarily because I see them as functional tech gadgets).... but god... swatch watches for the most part are awfully ugly.

  • Reply 16 of 82

    I guess they'll present their next big product wearing a rumpled trench coat and holding a cigar.

  • Reply 17 of 82

    Didn't they forget the 'just'?

  • Reply 18 of 82

    Next up:  "Swatch -- it just works"

  • Reply 19 of 82
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,678member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post

     

    Wow. I'm the first to say Steve Jobs didn't originate "Just One More Thing", but Swatch is really delusional here. Especially with their "Tick Different" trademark.

     

    Moreover, Columbo's use was in the context of asking one more devastating question, after weakening his suspect with a bunch of irritating softball questions. Is that really what Swatch is planning to do, or are they planning on introducing big new features -- the context with which Jobs used it.


    At first I was not sure what this was important, there are only so many ways to can put a words together, but Swatchs use of these and trademarking does not make sence relative to time keeping, then they do the Tick Different thing and you know thier marketing team is in love with Apple and trying to do what Apple is doing. They fact they are defending themselves tells alot as well, Columbo does not translate well around the world but Apple does.

  • Reply 20 of 82

    "one more thing" is just too common of a phrase to protect by anyone.

Sign In or Register to comment.