Swatch insists 'one more thing' trademark connected to Columbo, not Apple

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 82
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member

    Well actually Swatch alread did develop a car together with Mercedes. It's the Smart.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_(automobile)
  • Reply 62 of 82
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    Anyone willing to bet who decides to play the crowd on Sept 9th with a ....one more thing... and pause for audience reaction?

    TC, Craig, or Phil?
  • Reply 63 of 82
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Anyone willing to bet who decides to play the crowd on Sept 9th with a ....one more thing... and pause for audience reaction?

    TC, Craig, or Phil?

    "But...there is...one...more...thing. CAKE!"
  • Reply 64 of 82
    evilutionevilution Posts: 1,398member

    No one has spoken about Swatch for the last decade, now people are talking about swatch. All publicity is good publicity so they win.

  • Reply 65 of 82
    Swatch's One More Thing line: will it clash with my beat up junker, rumpled trench coat and unkempt hair?
  • Reply 66 of 82
    Regarding smart watches, and the misappropriation of a dead man's signature line, Swatch Group has just jumped the shark to become the:

    Swiss Samsung.
  • Reply 67 of 82
    singularitysingularity Posts: 1,328member
    solipsismy wrote: »
    It speaks to the potential that Swatch may be out of ideas and/or scared of the wrist-worn CE market and/or of the Apple Watch.
    I don't understand your question. The Apple TV wasn't "named so" because of the BBC, only that Apple couldn't use iTV in any market where iTV was a registered trademark, which I don't think included the USA or most of the world. Note that it's possible to split a branding name to abide by nationally recognized trademarks. Apple does this with AirPort in Japan which is trademarked by I-O Data so that same product gets the unique AirMac designation.

    Furthermore, I don't think it was ever trademarked as iTV and can't recall any attempt by Apple to trademark iTV. In fact, the only reason we know of the internal iTV codename was because Steve did a very unusual thing by introducing an incomplete Apple TV product that still didn't have a branding.

    But all that is besides the point, what does the Apple TV branding have to do with Swatch Group's uncreative slogans?
    Just as point of clarification it is the independent television company and is not the BBC. Two very distinctive organisations. One is set up by royal charter and has no adverts (funded by a license fee) the other free to air and funded by advertising
  • Reply 68 of 82
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    "But...there is...one...more...thing. CAKE!"

    Oh no! Hopefully not made of BEEF?! I'm a "vagen" and couldn't take the sight of that! :D
  • Reply 69 of 82
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    Oh no! Hopefully not made of BEEF?! I'm a "vagen" and couldn't take the sight of that! :D

    Replying to my own post... but it comes down to this:

    700

    vs.

    this....
    Spoiler:

    But hey! They spray-tan reminds me of a few recent episodes of "Apple Launches" :D
  • Reply 70 of 82
    bondm16bondm16 Posts: 141member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by razorpit View Post

     



    So you believe Swatch marketing is referencing a cigar smoking, slob of a cop from a 70's TV show, good for you.  Since we're not in "The People's Court" (I borrow from the 80's) the rest of us will see this for the farce that it is...


    Again I ask you for proof that the statement from Swatch is the truth or a lie and you can not provide that so we are back to square one. You cant call him a liar based on nothing to dispute his statement. I never said I believed him or not. Without evidence I have to take it at face value.

  • Reply 71 of 82
    razorpitrazorpit Posts: 1,796member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Bondm16 View Post

     

    Again I ask you for proof that the statement from Swatch is the truth or a lie and you can not provide that so we are back to square one. You cant call him a liar based on nothing to dispute his statement. I never said I believed him or not. Without evidence I have to take it at face value.




    Again, good for you.  Thats a good trait to have.  However in this case the rest of will laugh at the farce that we know that this is.

  • Reply 72 of 82
    bondm16bondm16 Posts: 141member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by razorpit View Post

     



    Again, good for you.  Thats a good trait to have.  However in this case the rest of will laugh at the farce that we know that this is.


    Go ahead and laugh at something you cant prove. I will sit back on the moral high ground.  If tomorrow some paperwork is leaked that clearly shows that Swatch was trolling Apple and its use of the slogan then I will quite happily join you. 

  • Reply 73 of 82
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by singularity View Post





    Just as point of clarification it is the independent television company and is not the BBC. Two very distinctive organisations. One is set up by royal charter and has no adverts (funded by a license fee) the other free to air and funded by advertising



    Moreover, iTV is a major international television production and distribution company, likely with Trademark protection in every country in which they operate, including the USA. Unlike the whole essentially defunct Apple Records Trademark issue, this is not likely to be resolved as easily in the unlikely event Apple wanted to make an issue out of it, which I doubt they ever would. 

  • Reply 74 of 82
    damonfdamonf Posts: 224member
    bondm16 wrote: »
    Again I ask you for proof that the statement from Swatch is the truth or a lie and you can not provide that so we are back to square one. You cant call him a liar based on nothing to dispute his statement. I never said I believed him or not. Without evidence I have to take it at face value.

    Because "One more thing" being filed along with "Tick Different" is too coincidental. The former on its own without the latter would be believable, but in this case with both slogans in play, Swatch's rationalization is just unbelievable. Who can seriously justify "Tick Different" as an originally thought up Swatch slogan, not based whatsoever on Apple's "Think Different" slogan? Therefore, the argument for plagiarism is stronger than if only "One more thing" were at issue.
  • Reply 75 of 82
    razorpitrazorpit Posts: 1,796member
    bondm16 wrote: »
    Go ahead and laugh at something you cant prove. I will sit back on the moral high ground.  If tomorrow some paperwork is leaked that clearly shows that Swatch was trolling Apple and its use of the slogan then I will quite happily join you. 

    Can you not, not prove it? No. You have to take Swatch's word on it. Prove what they're saying is true. You can't prove it just as I can't. Those of us who believe they are lying have a trail of questionable practices as DamonF pointed out.
  • Reply 76 of 82
    bondm16bondm16 Posts: 141member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by razorpit View Post





    Can you not, not prove it? No. You have to take Swatch's word on it. Prove what they're saying is true. You can't prove it just as I can't. Those of us who believe they are lying have a trail of questionable practices as DamonF pointed out.

     

    Sorry you will need more proof for me to believe it. That's all folks.

  • Reply 77 of 82
    razorpitrazorpit Posts: 1,796member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bondm16 View Post

     

     

    Sorry you will need more proof for me to believe it. That's all folks.




    At this point it's kind of cute how you believe Swatch marketing was channeling this almost forgotten character from the 70's;

    image

     

    and not this, considering all the success they have had surrounding their "one more thing" over the last 20 some odd years...

    image

     

    Just one more thing, what is the "one more thing" Swatch is so known for?  I haven't noticed anything new or note worthy from them since around 1988'ish, give or take a year or two.

  • Reply 78 of 82
    bondm16bondm16 Posts: 141member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by razorpit View Post

     



    At this point it's kind of cute how you believe Swatch marketing was channeling this almost forgotten character from the 70's;

    image

     

    and not this, considering all the success they have had surrounding their "one more thing" over the last 20 some odd years...

    image

     

    Just one more thing, what is the "one more thing" Swatch is so known for?  I haven't noticed anything new or note worthy from them since around 1988'ish, give or take a year or two.


     

     

    Which language do I have to say this in for you to get it? I do not believe the person who made the statement on behalf of Swatch is either lying or telling the truth as there is not enough information to prove either way. So saying you think its cute that I believe Swatch marketing is so full of crap that the crapOmeter needle is way past dangerously too full and is rapidly approaching cover your ears and run. 

  • Reply 79 of 82
    razorpitrazorpit Posts: 1,796member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bondm16 View Post

     

     

     

    Which language do I have to say this in for you to get it? I do not believe the person who made the statement on behalf of Swatch is either lying or telling the truth as there is not enough information to prove either way. So saying you think its cute that I believe Swatch marketing is so full of crap that the crapOmeter needle is way past dangerously too full and is rapidly approaching cover your ears and run. 


     

    Your stance until now was that you couldn't call them liars even though everyone else recognized that to be the case.  Glad to see you're finally onboard with at least some suspect of them being full of crap.  If "Colombo were still alive" he would be proud knowing you weren't taking someone's story at face value...

  • Reply 80 of 82
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    razorpit wrote: »
    Your stance until now was that you couldn't call them liars even though everyone else recognized that to be the case.  Glad to see you're finally onboard with at least some suspect of them being full of crap.  If "Columbo were still alive" he would be proud knowing you weren't taking someone's story at face value...

    He's correct that there isn't enough evidence to make an absolute claim as fact, but as it's been pointed out, thinking Swatch Group pulled a phrase from an American made-for-TV movies from the late 70s and early 80s both sounds specious and comical.

    Then if we add to that Swatch Group's new "Tick Different" slogan, Apple having just jumped into the watch making business, all reasonable accounts of Watch dominating the smartwatch category, the likelihood this is hurting conventions watch sales in that price range, Swtch moving into the smartwatch business, and their CEO making similar statements about Apple and Watch that mirror what was said in 2007 when Apple first entered the cellphone business it all seems ridiculous to think it's a coincidence and, yet, we don't have any proof they didn't pull it from Colombo.
Sign In or Register to comment.