First off all, a company doesn’t “look to trademark something.” 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 “One More Thing.” It filed a trademark application for “Swatch One More Thing.” 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 “as a trademark” (i.e., as a source identifier – like a brand) in connection with these and only these types of goods. They don’t have a right to stop people from saying “One More Thing” or “Swatch One More Things” 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.
A) Swatch can bite it on their way out of business. Cook also used "One more thing" when he introduced Apple Music, which was absolutely the worst time that phrase has ever been used.
I definitely agree that, that's a douchey move! I don't know why other companies have to make it obvious that they are copying Apple. Apple very rarely invents anything, albeit when they it's more than likely going to be a hit. All they really do really is innovate, not invent. These companies should be ashamed that they are blatantly doing stuff like this. Sell your products on your merits not others. If they wanted something Apple has, then they would go to Apple. FFS Man!
Shouldn't it be denied on the same basis 'App Store' trademark was denied to Apple? That said, I stil, don't understand how 'Windows' was allowed to be trademarked but 'App Store' was not.
"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.
Cook used it recently. So there goes that.
It's Job's signature encore presentation line. The entire world knows this.
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.
Just One More Thing...Apple is seemingly more interested in curated music and video subscription content, and Apple Watch, and Apple cars...than goong back to one more thing being kick ass technology in the form of computers and innovative mobile devices
anyway, the Just One More Thing has been stagnant since Mr. Jobs passed away
He's desperately trying, isn't he? Been noticing his posts but I'm really not in a mood to feed him. I took the easier route of just flagging the message.
Shouldn't it be denied on the same basis 'App Store' trademark was denied to Apple? That said, I stil, don't understand how 'Windows' was allowed to be trademarked but 'App Store' was not.
Yeah but it's only wrong when Apple does it. Every time.
Comments
First off all, a company doesn’t “look to trademark something.” 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 “One More Thing.” It filed a trademark application for “Swatch One More Thing.” 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 “as a trademark” (i.e., as a source identifier – like a brand) in connection with these and only these types of goods. They don’t have a right to stop people from saying “One More Thing” or “Swatch One More Things” 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.
Prior art making it a common phrase that had entered the English vernacular (every utterance of Steve Jobs), plus Screw Swatch™!
I wonder if Steve had been a Columbo fan as a kid.
This slide should appear at the end of the next WWDC keynote:
var thing=0
++thing
LOL. Thank goodness. Maybe he made good on losing a bet.
Cook also used it for Apple Music... but yeah, this is kinda weird.
Xiaomi got crapped on for copying it, I am certain the same will happen to Swatch, whether they own the patent or not.
Trademarks and patents are completely different things.
Wait, sog35 got banned?
I don't believe this site distinguishes between temporary revocation of posting privileges and permanent bans.
This does not extends to the USA. But it sounds like they are after Apple.
Is associated with Apple.
They should go ahead and trademark it.
But phrases shouldn't be trademarkable.
Anyone trying to steal apples constant intro line and lock it down should be put in jail just for being that stupid.
Cook used it recently. So there goes that.
It's Job's signature encore presentation line. The entire world knows this.
It stays with Apple.
And also in the words of Jobs... "Boom." Done.
Now watch Swatch apply to trademark that.
Are you still trying to start a fight?
anyway, the Just One More Thing has been stagnant since Mr. Jobs passed away
Are you still trying to start a fight?
He's desperately trying, isn't he? Been noticing his posts but I'm really not in a mood to feed him. I took the easier route of just flagging the message.
Yeah but it's only wrong when Apple does it. Every time.
Swatch just went down in my estimation. I guess money from cheap watches can buy you high-end brands but not the class associated with them.
Wouldn't 'Oh, and one more thing' count as a different phrase?