This up is stupid, take the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on the lawsuit and use it buying the swatch group stick. Keep buying until you have control over the company, then shut it down. Problem solved.
This up is stupid, take the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on the lawsuit and use it buying the swatch group stick. Keep buying until you have control over the company, then shut it down. Problem solved.
I agree, it is stupid… I wonder how the executives at swatch can explain and justify the astronomical amount of legal fees they have spent doing things like this > https://appleinsider.com/articles/15/08/20/swatch-looks-to-trademark-one-more-thing-phrase-made-famous-by-steve-jobs < to its investors/share holders… is that CEO raking in millions a year for being such a good and effective steward of that companies purse and protecting shareholder value? Apple is kind of forced into this, they were the ones who were served with the court papers, and are being sued, and I don’t think they had trademarked anything like that… not to leave without mention its absolutely ridiculous there are laws or courts anywhere that will allow a company to take normal everyday words that might happen to be put in a sequence or recited by an individual… its just plain dumb it is, and worse, that there are people who tolerate it… maybe the CEO’s got family or close friends handling the legal aspects of this type of nonsense, that are also being enriched… it wouldn’t surprise me one bit.
This up is stupid, take the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on the lawsuit and use it buying the swatch group stick. Keep buying until you have control over the company, then shut it down. Problem solved.
I agree, it is stupid… I wonder how the executives at swatch can explain and justify the astronomical amount of legal fees they have spent doing things like this > https://appleinsider.com/articles/15/08/20/swatch-looks-to-trademark-one-more-thing-phrase-made-famous-by-steve-jobs < to its investors/share holders… is that CEO raking in millions a year for being such a good and effective steward of that companies purse and protecting shareholder value? Apple is kind of forced into this, they were the ones who were served with the court papers, and are being sued, and I don’t think they had trademarked anything like that… not to leave without mention its absolutely ridiculous there are laws or courts anywhere that will allow a company to take normal everyday words that might happen to be put in a sequence or recited by an individual… its just plain dumb it is, and worse, that there are people who tolerate it… maybe the CEO’s got family or close friends handling the legal aspects of this type of nonsense, that are also being enriched… it wouldn’t surprise me one bit.
It's for consumer protection. A trademark is not the same as a copyright. Trademarks rights protect consumers from being confuse by products made by one company because they are using a trademark (or very similar trademark), that most consumers already associate with another company.
If a barbecue ribs diner used the slogan .... "finger lickin' good"..... in their ad, wouldn't you first think that the rib diner was associated with KFC? Or if a local micro-brewery used ..... "The King of Beers".... in their ads? Wouldn't you think the beer company was associated with Budweiser? How about if you saw an ad using the .... "Breakfast of champions"? Or "melts in your mouth, not in your hands"? .... What company or product do you first think of when you see or hear ...... "It's the real thing" ...... "The ultimate driving machine" ..... "Betcha you can't eat just one" ... "Where's the beef?" ...... "The happiest place on Earth" ... "Fly the friendly skies ... " ?
These are all famous trademarks own by the companies that turned a combination of common words that most consumers (for generations) automatically associated with their product or company. And companies will pay millions to defend their trademarks. The easiest way for a company to lose their trademarks is to not defend it, when others infringe upon it. Not because they are no longer using it. "It's the real thing" haven't been used by Coca Cola for decades, but you better believe that even now, consumers still think of Coca Cols when they see or hear ..."Its the real thing"... and Coca Cola will still defend that trademark if infringed upon. As would Anheuser Busch if another beer company advertised their product as " The King of Beers". And Lays Potato Chip, if another company used .. "Betcha you can't eat just one".
So even if very few consumers would mistaken a cheap watch that has "Tick Different" on its face, as one made by Apple. Apple still have to defend their trademark or otherwise stand the chance of losing it.
Comments
If a barbecue ribs diner used the slogan .... "finger lickin' good"..... in their ad, wouldn't you first think that the rib diner was associated with KFC? Or if a local micro-brewery used ..... "The King of Beers".... in their ads? Wouldn't you think the beer company was associated with Budweiser? How about if you saw an ad using the .... "Breakfast of champions"? Or "melts in your mouth, not in your hands"? .... What company or product do you first think of when you see or hear ...... "It's the real thing" ...... "The ultimate driving machine" ..... "Betcha you can't eat just one" ... "Where's the beef?" ...... "The happiest place on Earth" ... "Fly the friendly skies ... " ?
These are all famous trademarks own by the companies that turned a combination of common words that most consumers (for generations) automatically associated with their product or company. And companies will pay millions to defend their trademarks. The easiest way for a company to lose their trademarks is to not defend it, when others infringe upon it. Not because they are no longer using it. "It's the real thing" haven't been used by Coca Cola for decades, but you better believe that even now, consumers still think of Coca Cols when they see or hear ..."Its the real thing"... and Coca Cola will still defend that trademark if infringed upon. As would Anheuser Busch if another beer company advertised their product as " The King of Beers". And Lays Potato Chip, if another company used .. "Betcha you can't eat just one".
So even if very few consumers would mistaken a cheap watch that has "Tick Different" on its face, as one made by Apple. Apple still have to defend their trademark or otherwise stand the chance of losing it.