"one more thing" was never used by Jobs or Apple as part of an ad campaign nor was it directly connected to a specific product, I don't see a problem with it. "tick different" is clever and again is like a (film) company using "the reel thing".
This is an attempt to get in Apple's face, because when Apple asserts its rights, Swatch, like all the rest, can use Apple's size against it by pointing to Apple and saying, "there, there's your bully."
This is an attempt to get in Apple's face, because when Apple asserts its rights, Swatch, like all the rest, can use Apple's size against it by pointing to Apple and saying, "there, there's your bully."
But Swatch Groups is absolutely massive in the watch industry so it's hard to see them as an underdog.
"we don't use something anymore, but we don't want anyone else to have it either".
Good grief, if Apple was interested in it they would have trademarked it. Apple has no shortage of patents or trademarks. The fact they don't already have it should tell you that they don't care. But some of y'all are worked up over it.
My reaction is that I can't believe any company would be so bankrupt of ideas that they'd want to use a tagline that is commonly associated with another company.
I'm not sure many people who aren't die hard Apple fans know that is associated with Apple. Unless you made a habit of watching announcements, which a vast majority of the people in the world don't then you probably have no idea.
I am betting Swatch is about to unveil a new ad campaign around that, and are locking it up like every company does.
"we don't use something anymore, but we don't want anyone else to have it either".
Good grief, if Apple was interested in it they would have trademarked it. Apple has no shortage of patents or trademarks. The fact they don't already have it should tell you that they don't care. But some of y'all are worked up over it.
Me personally, I just think it is in bad taste. No one outside of the core Apple fan (no pun intended) would know the reference as they probably don't watch the keynotes, but it is obvious they are playing off Apple especially with their "Tick Different" slogan.
Did Apple trademark "One more thing"? If not, it's fair game. My thought, it doesn't matter anyway. Apple is moving on from Steve Jobs, they kind of have to. Besides, Paris Hilton trademarked "That's hot" which clearly did nothing to elevate her brand.
*sure hope I don't have to pay her money for using that phrase LOL
It apparently takes very little to get the cult's undies in a twist, Apple already has paid lawyers so those bothered by this should take a deep breath and relax.
AppleInsider has some good articles, but it should steer clear of topics that it doesn%u2019t know anything about. This article has so many things wrong with it, I don%u2019t even know where to begin.
First off all, a company doesn%u2019t %u201Clook to trademark something.%u201D A company can (and typically automatically does) obtain trademark rights in a mark simply my using that mark in connection with certain goods or services. The company can then file an application for registration, which provides additional legal rights associated with that mark.
Second, Swatch did not file a trademark application for %u201COne More Thing.%u201D It filed a trademark application for %u201CSwatch One More Thing.%u201D The difference is significant as marks are considered as a whole.
Third, the application identifies goods in classes 9 and 14, which generally include electronic devices and watches. This means that they have exclusive rights to use this mark %u201Cas a trademark%u201D (i.e., as a source identifier %u2013 like a brand) in connection with these and only these types of goods. They don%u2019t have a right to stop people from saying %u201COne More Thing%u201D or %u201CSwatch One More Things%u201D for that matter, generally.
Fourth, trademark rights are national (i.e., they are provided on a country-by-country basis). Swatch filed what is called a Madrid Protocol application, which covers multiple countries. However, Swatch did not designate the US this application, and therefore this application does not claim any trademark rights in the US.
AppleInsider, do some basic research next time before you attempt to cover IP-related topics.
Comments
But Swatch Groups is absolutely massive in the watch industry so it's hard to see them as an underdog.
Posters here sound like spoiled brats.
"we don't use something anymore, but we don't want anyone else to have it either".
Good grief, if Apple was interested in it they would have trademarked it. Apple has no shortage of patents or trademarks. The fact they don't already have it should tell you that they don't care. But some of y'all are worked up over it.
I'm not sure many people who aren't die hard Apple fans know that is associated with Apple. Unless you made a habit of watching announcements, which a vast majority of the people in the world don't then you probably have no idea.
I am betting Swatch is about to unveil a new ad campaign around that, and are locking it up like every company does.
I am not sure how this is at all news.
Year, but 9billion CHF revenue is still less than Apple. Quite less.
Me personally, I just think it is in bad taste. No one outside of the core Apple fan (no pun intended) would know the reference as they probably don't watch the keynotes, but it is obvious they are playing off Apple especially with their "Tick Different" slogan.
Xiaomi got crapped on for copying it, I am certain the same will happen to Swatch, whether they own the patent or not.
Did Apple trademark "One more thing"? If not, it's fair game. My thought, it doesn't matter anyway. Apple is moving on from Steve Jobs, they kind of have to. Besides, Paris Hilton trademarked "That's hot" which clearly did nothing to elevate her brand.
*sure hope I don't have to pay her money for using that phrase LOL
Wouldn't prior art invalidate the trademark attempt?
I wondered about that, there is rather a lot of videos out there for Apple if they even care ... but as some else said, Columbo probably has more!
It apparently takes very little to get the cult's undies in a twist, Apple already has paid lawyers so those bothered by this should take a deep breath and relax.
First off all, a company doesn%u2019t %u201Clook to trademark something.%u201D A company can (and typically automatically does) obtain trademark rights in a mark simply my using that mark in connection with certain goods or services. The company can then file an application for registration, which provides additional legal rights associated with that mark.
Second, Swatch did not file a trademark application for %u201COne More Thing.%u201D It filed a trademark application for %u201CSwatch One More Thing.%u201D The difference is significant as marks are considered as a whole.
Third, the application identifies goods in classes 9 and 14, which generally include electronic devices and watches. This means that they have exclusive rights to use this mark %u201Cas a trademark%u201D (i.e., as a source identifier %u2013 like a brand) in connection with these and only these types of goods. They don%u2019t have a right to stop people from saying %u201COne More Thing%u201D or %u201CSwatch One More Things%u201D for that matter, generally.
Fourth, trademark rights are national (i.e., they are provided on a country-by-country basis). Swatch filed what is called a Madrid Protocol application, which covers multiple countries. However, Swatch did not designate the US this application, and therefore this application does not claim any trademark rights in the US.
AppleInsider, do some basic research next time before you attempt to cover IP-related topics.