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.
It doesn't matter if Apple wins or not. This is basic trademark defense. By spending a few million on this lawsuit, Apple protects their past, present and future trademark infringements from anyone that might also try to ride their coat tails. The entire Samsung lawsuit was the same thing only on a larger scale regarding IP theft.
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.
While I think you're right, if it was just 1 thing, and I think it's a waste of Apple's time. But it looks like Swatch is copy and going after Apple doing a number of things. I don't don't know if suing is really the answer on this though. I mean I still have zero interest to get a Swatch watch!
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.
It's about consumer confusion. If you were presented with "Tick Different" and asked what company or product that represented, would you think Apple or Swatch? I would assume Apple but it doesn't matter because the intent to confuse consumers is all that matters. To me, that is very easy to prove.
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.
Do you remember where Apple's ad agency guy Craig Tanimoto got the idea for "Think Different"?
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.
It's about consumer confusion. If you were presented with "Tick Different" and asked what company or product that represented, would you think Apple or Swatch? I would assume Apple but it doesn't matter because the intent to confuse consumers is all that matters. To me, that is very easy to prove.
+1
This was Samsung's entire mobile strategy for a good five years.
1) I like that NFC-based payments are coming other devices, especially traditional watches. This is a good thing, especially if it's setup using an actual smart device so that if the watch is lost or stolen your physical card number isn't ever compromised. The more the merrier.
2) I'm guessing that Swatch Group will be allowed to use Tick Different. We all know where it came from but I think it's different enough and I don't think Apple has actively—in any real sense—used Think Different for about 15 years.
3) According to the first partial calendar year of Apple Watch sales, Apple beat all of Swatch Group in revenue. Watch was only bested by Rolex's consortium of products, but I expect Apple to dominate this market, too. While I'm still on the original Apple Watch, it's still the first thing I put on in the morning and the last thing I take off at night—besides your mom. I do plan to buy another in the future as the need arises, but so far it's still running great, looks great, and is fast enough. I even use it for swimming. I did buy the woven band for it after those came out.
Having owned many a Swatch watch, I can tell you that the absolute worst thing about them is their loud ticks. Every damn one of them. If they want to highlight the most annoying feature about their product, they should go right ahead, knock themselves out.
Apple shouldn't even bother with this idiotic campaign of a company/product that is clearly in decline mode.
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?
Perhaps you misread what I wrote. I quote myself here: " Watch has actually decimated all opposition in profits" I agree with you. I have posted innumerable times that selling less at a good margin is better business than selling 'more'.
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.
Not really. If you don't defend it you lose it. This has been established.
it's completely expected for Apple to defend its trademark. If somebody came out with "Big Beige" IBM would seek to protect its Big Blue trademark too. same thing.
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.
Not really. If you don't defend it you lose it. This has been established.
Correct. Trademarks are required to be protected by the owner to remain valid, with proper notification of infringement required prior to any legal action. Patents do not have to be defended to remain valid.
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.
Not really. The statement is telling you what to think, not how to think. The subject of the sentence is You, which is understood and left out. That leaves just the verb and the object. (You) think different. The word 'different' isn't used as an adverb.
C'mon, Apple. A lawsuit? srsly. Make a 20-second commercial about Apple Watch, with three 5-second segments where Siri answers "what's the score of the cricket game", sets an alarm, and then enunciates the time of day, each in a different accent. Here's the tagline: "Tock different".
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?
Perhaps you misread what I wrote. I quote myself here: " Watch has actually decimated all opposition in profits" I agree with you. I have posted innumerable times that selling less at a good margin is better business than selling 'more'.
Do you have a source for this? Last I saw Rolex still had more revenue than Apple, and I assume that they also can command a high profit margin.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this, yet. IBM's slogan used to be THINK. Apple's THINK DIFFERENT was just as much a jab as TICK DIFFERENT. Apple is hoisted by its own petard and doesn't care for it, it seems.
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.
Not really. The statement is telling you what to think, not how to think. The subject of the sentence is You, which is understood and left out. That leaves just the verb and the object. (You) think different. The word 'different' isn't used as an adverb.
Oh give me a break. You know exactly what Swatch is trying to do. Just like you knew exactly what they were trying to do when they trademarked "One more thing".
Comments
It's about consumer confusion. If you were presented with "Tick Different" and asked what company or product that represented, would you think Apple or Swatch? I would assume Apple but it doesn't matter because the intent to confuse consumers is all that matters. To me, that is very easy to prove.
IBM's "Think IBM" ads
+1
This was Samsung's entire mobile strategy for a good five years.
2) I'm guessing that Swatch Group will be allowed to use Tick Different. We all know where it came from but I think it's different enough and I don't think Apple has actively—in any real sense—used Think Different for about 15 years.
3) According to the first partial calendar year of Apple Watch sales, Apple beat all of Swatch Group in revenue. Watch was only bested by Rolex's consortium of products, but I expect Apple to dominate this market, too. While I'm still on the original Apple Watch, it's still the first thing I put on in the morning and the last thing I take off at night—besides your mom. I do plan to buy another in the future as the need arises, but so far it's still running great, looks great, and is fast enough. I even use it for swimming. I did buy the woven band for it after those came out.
Apple shouldn't even bother with this idiotic campaign of a company/product that is clearly in decline mode.
Thank you, Samsung PR.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this, yet. IBM's slogan used to be THINK. Apple's THINK DIFFERENT was just as much a jab as TICK DIFFERENT. Apple is hoisted by its own petard and doesn't care for it, it seems.
Oh give me a break. You know exactly what Swatch is trying to do. Just like you knew exactly what they were trying to do when they trademarked "One more thing".