Patent could delay Apple Watch debut in Switzerland, report says

Posted:
in Apple Watch edited July 2015
The Apple Watch may not be able to launch in Switzerland until at least December of this year because of a patent dating back to 1985, a document from the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property suggests.




The document was published in trade magazine Business Montres & Joaillerie, and recently discovered by local broadcaster RTS, Reuters said on Saturday. The patent belongs to William Longe, owner of the Leonard watch brand, and is said to block Apple from using the image of an apple -- or even the word "apple" -- for a watch.

It should, however, expire on December 5, leaving Apple free to sell its new Watch in Switzerland sometime thereafter.

Apple is due to ship the Apple Watch in nine regions on April 24. Those include the US, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Hong Kong, mainland China, Japan, and the UK. Sales are expected to expand to more countries, with Europe likely to be a focus, but the pace of the rollout will be dependent on how quickly Apple's suppliers and manufacturing partners can work.

Late last month, a source informed AppleInsider that shipments of the Watch will probably be constrained at launch. Apple is said to be prepared for the issue though, which may make the situation little different than the launch of the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus. After several months, Apple's production chain eventually caught up with demand.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 56
    applesauce007applesauce007 Posts: 1,682member
    The Swiss watchmakers are desperate.
    They are gonna be toast and they know it and they just cannot dodge the bullet.
    8.0+ Richter disruptions coming to the watch industry only to be followed by tsunamis.

    Here is a link to the document
    [URL=https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1700140/2015-04-02-detail-marques.pdf]https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1700140/2015-04-02-detail-marques.pdf[/URL]
  • Reply 2 of 56
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    I'm not getting the connection between a patent and trademarks. In the US a patent is filed for an invention method, while advertising and marketing are done via contextual trademarks such as "Apple". Not the same there?
  • Reply 3 of 56
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,305member

    Rounding error for Apple's watch sales.

     

    Inevitable delayed for Switzerland's watch makers.

  • Reply 4 of 56
    danielswdanielsw Posts: 906member

    Let's do a little more nipping at Apple's heels. Much easier than reworking our complacent watchmaking industry to meet the Apple threat head on.

  • Reply 5 of 56
    boredumbboredumb Posts: 1,418member

    Good thing Apple hasn't tried developing a new line of chocolates...

  • Reply 6 of 56
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 3,585member
    Figure out how much Apple would lose by not selling in Switzerland before December, offer the guy a small percentage of that figure. Or, just wait him out. Apple will have no problem selling Switzerland's share elsewhere. Shortened waiting lists for the rest of us.
  • Reply 7 of 56
    The delay of the Apple Watch sale in Switzerland, for whatever ridiculous reason, is of zero consequence, for a very simple reason:

    Since Switzerland recently decoupled the Swiss Franc from the Euro, goods have become ridiculously more expensive in Switzerland (even more than they already were), making Germany and Austria attractive shopping havens for Swiss consumers. The Swiss are Apple junkies, so when the Apple Watch becomes available in Germany this month, count on a large number of potential buyers coming from Switzerland.
  • Reply 8 of 56
    jd_in_sbjd_in_sb Posts: 1,600member
    I think the market for Swiss watches that have battery life longer than 18 hours is safe.
  • Reply 9 of 56
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post



    I think the market for Swiss watches that have battery life longer than 18 hours is safe.



    I don't. I think what'll happen is some people will still buy them, but they'll be for very rare occasions, which means people won't buy them as often. And as they continue to enjoy ?Watch, they'll want to go without it less and less.

  • Reply 10 of 56
    applesauce007applesauce007 Posts: 1,682member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post



    I think the market for Swiss watches that have battery life longer than 18 hours is safe.



    Of course, just like the feature phones and dumb phones on sale today.

  • Reply 11 of 56
    Apparently, only a trademark has been registered and not any patent.

    Additionally, under Swiss law, if you don't make any use of a registered trademark for a certain period of time, any third party can challenge it and you risk to loose your rights.

    Hence, as it all but sure that current trademark owner of "Apple Watch" in Switzerland has made any use of it, Apple should not have any major difficulties to sell its latest product in this market, as well.
  • Reply 12 of 56
    jameskatt2jameskatt2 Posts: 720member

    April Fools!

     

    Switzerland is a small country.

     

    The Swiss can simply buy their Apple Watches in France or Germany.

  • Reply 13 of 56
    baconstangbaconstang Posts: 873member
    @ boredumb..."Good thing Apple hasn't tried developing a new line of chocolates..."

    Apple should market toilet paper to Fandroids. I'm sure they'd stock up on it.
  • Reply 14 of 56
    dewmedewme Posts: 4,184member

    Today's word of the day boys and girls is "Protectionism."

     

    That's spelled with a capital "P" - as in "Pathetic" and "Puny."

     

    The easy workaround: Basel.

  • Reply 15 of 56
    narcomanarcoma Posts: 37member

    According to iMore:

    "

    The trademark is in the news thanks to RTS and Reuters, who picked up their report yet somehow managed to misidentify the nature of the intellectual property claim as a patent instead of a trademark.

    All of this is currently moot, however, because Apple hasn't announced an Apple Watch launch for Switzerland yet. That means there's nothing to "hit" and really no story at all. Not unless and until Apple announces a launch for Switzerland that comes before the expiration date on the trademark.

    For now, we have 9 countries enough to worry about come pre-orders on April 10 and release on April 24."

  • Reply 16 of 56
    sirlance99sirlance99 Posts: 1,278member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post



    The Swiss watchmakers are desperate.

    They are gonna be toast and they know it and they just cannot dodge the bullet.

    8.0+ Richter disruptions coming to the watch industry only to be followed by tsunamis.



    Here is a link to the document

    https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1700140/2015-04-02-detail-marques.pdf

     

    Stop it. No they are not. The watchmakers are not going anywhere and will do just fine. There will be plenty of people that will always take a handmade watch that will last decades and be able to be passed down to the kids. 

     

    Will the Apple Watch do well? Sure, it'll do well but there will still be other watches that people will desire more.

  • Reply 17 of 56
    sirlance99sirlance99 Posts: 1,278member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post

     



    Of course, just like the feature phones and dumb phones on sale today.


    Not even remotely compairable

  • Reply 18 of 56
    analogjackanalogjack Posts: 1,073member

    How Screwed Is The Watch Industry Thanks To The Apple Watch?

     

    And, here is the most intelligent review yet of the Apple Watch from a watch aficionado's insider perspective.

  • Reply 19 of 56
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    sirlance99 wrote: »
    Not even remotely compairable

    incorrect - it's the perfect analogy. feature phones are dumbphones because they don't do anything, which is why they get much better battery life. same with non-smartwatches -- they get better battery life because they can't do much.

    what's not clear?
  • Reply 20 of 56
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    narcoma wrote: »
    According to iMore:
    "The trademark is in the news thanks to RTS and Reuters, who picked up their report yet somehow managed to misidentify the nature of the intellectual property claim as a patent instead of a trademark.

    that explains it. not related to a patent at all....I read the Reuters article but they must have got it wrong.
Sign In or Register to comment.