As someone on 9to5Mac pointed out, Think Different is actually grammatically incorrect. It should be Think Differently. So for Swatch to use the phrase Tick Different they are making the same grammatical error.
Not really. The statement is telling you what to think, not how to think. The subject of the sentence is You, which is understood and left out. That leaves just the verb and the object. (You) think different. The word 'different' isn't used as an adverb.
Oh give me a break. You know exactly what Swatch is trying to do. Just like you knew exactly what they were trying to do when they trademarked "One more thing".
Read what chabig was responding to. He's just refuting the assertion that "Think Different" is "grammatically incorrect." This was widely debated when that campaign was in full swing, and chabig is correct.
As someone on 9to5Mac pointed out, Think Different is actually grammatically incorrect. It should be Think Differently. So for Swatch to use the phrase Tick Different they are making the same grammatical error.
Not really. The statement is telling you what to think, not how to think. The subject of the sentence is You, which is understood and left out. That leaves just the verb and the object. (You) think different. The word 'different' isn't used as an adverb.
Oh give me a break. You know exactly what Swatch is trying to do. Just like you knew exactly what they were trying to do when they trademarked "One more thing".
I don't think there is any doubt that Swatch is playing off "Think Different." To assert otherwise is completely disingenuous. Having said that the legal standard isn't "is the company trying to profit by getting close to someone's trademark?" It's a question for the Swiss court if "Tick Different" is sufficiently different from "Think Different" (in context) to be not a violation. I expect that the court will rule that it's not a violation. If Apple had a history of using lots of different phrases (e.g., "Walk Different", "Play Different", "Work Different") they would be on much stronger ground. I also wouldn't be surprised if Apple loses in the Swiss courts and wins in the US courts (if it comes to that).
I don't think there is any doubt that Swatch is playing off "Think Different." To assert otherwise is completely disingenuous. Having said that the legal standard isn't "is the company trying to profit by getting close to someone's trademark?" It's a question for the Swiss court if "Tick Different" is sufficiently different from "Think Different" (in context) to be not a violation. I expect that the court will rule that it's not a violation. If Apple had a history of using lots of different phrases (e.g., "Walk Different", "Play Different", "Work Different") they would be on much stronger ground. I also wouldn't be surprised if Apple loses in the Swiss courts and wins in the US courts (if it comes to that).
There's more at stack than "sufficiently different," or, rather, doesn't confuse potential customers; trademarks become fair game when they fall into disuse.
Apple has multiple examples with different results. Cisco had both Iphone and IOS before Apple did, yet Apple was able to still use iPhone and iOS, but before a deal was made Cisco did push out a rebranded product that used the Iphone branding to show they were using it. Cisco still using IOS.
Then you have iTV, the codename for Apple TV. Had the British ITV not been in use and potentially very confusing for UK residents, I'm certain Apple would've used iTV over Apple TV. Personally I'm glad that the 'i' nomenclature wasn't used as I was never a fan.
Then you have AirPort products, which are called AirPort everywhere Apple sells them, except for Japan, where it's called AirMac because of a trademark by I-O Data.
Are slogans different from a branding in terms of trademark law? I don't know, but I do think that Swatch is likely going to win this based on what I've previous seen with trademark disputes in the past, but as @volcan says, you have to defend it.
Agreed - this is a perfect example of frivolous. Just a waste of time (pun intended) and money. Not sure why Apple feels the need to pursue this - they have an amazing product in the Apple Watch, and I don't see how Swatch could hope to compete with it
Agreed - this is a perfect example of frivolous. Just a waste of time (pun intended) and money. Not sure why Apple feels the need to pursue this - they have an amazing product in the Apple Watch, and I don't see how Swatch could hope to compete with it
Don't conflate the two. It doesn't seem likely Apple will win this lawsuit since Swatch Group doesn't seem to be infringing (in my opinion), but it's far from frivolous to go through the actions of protecting a trademark.
Oh the irony. I Think (pun intended) Apple actually lifted this campaign from IBM. Back in the 70's and 80', IBM had a slogan of "THINK". Every IBMer had a THINK sign on their desk in the day. So Jobs' hatred of IBM led to the "Think Differently" slogan. I guess what goes around comes around.
So it is okay for other companies to sue Apple for using their iconic design/slogan, etc, just like this, where Apple had to pay $21M, I bet none of you even bat an eye.
randominternetperson said: I also wouldn't be surprised if Apple loses in the Swiss courts and wins in the US courts
Doesn't matter win or lose. Apple is on the record for defending their slogan. If they don't protect it, it could become another Xerox or Kleenex.
But that's a different problem. People used Xerox and Kleenex too much and they threatened to fall into the public domain. The issue here is that not only must they defend it, they must use it. Here's a prime example of a Trademark stripped from a company who had let it fall into disuse.
Comments
Read what chabig was responding to. He's just refuting the assertion that "Think Different" is "grammatically incorrect." This was widely debated when that campaign was in full swing, and chabig is correct.
Apple has multiple examples with different results. Cisco had both Iphone and IOS before Apple did, yet Apple was able to still use iPhone and iOS, but before a deal was made Cisco did push out a rebranded product that used the Iphone branding to show they were using it. Cisco still using IOS.
Then you have iTV, the codename for Apple TV. Had the British ITV not been in use and potentially very confusing for UK residents, I'm certain Apple would've used iTV over Apple TV. Personally I'm glad that the 'i' nomenclature wasn't used as I was never a fan.
Then you have AirPort products, which are called AirPort everywhere Apple sells them, except for Japan, where it's called AirMac because of a trademark by I-O Data.
Are slogans different from a branding in terms of trademark law? I don't know, but I do think that Swatch is likely going to win this based on what I've previous seen with trademark disputes in the past, but as @volcan says, you have to defend it.
http://www.npr.org/2015/09/23/442761531/one-mans-mission-to-bring-back-hydrox-cookies