Apple Loses Bid To Stop Swatch Using Jobs's 'One More Thing' Cue (bloomberg.com) 52
"One more thing," Steve Jobs would say at the end of many an Apple keynote, giving his cue for announcing a surprise new product. But Apple can't keep its founder's turn of phrase for itself, a London judge ruled Monday as he sided with Swiss watchmaker Swatch Group AG in a long-running dispute over trademarks. From a report: Swatch's attempt to register the phrase might have been an attempt to "annoy" Apple, Judge Iain Purvis said in his ruling, but Apple can't block it from doing so. Purvis said in his ruling that the phrase probably originated with the fictional TV detective Columbo. A previous court officer was wrong to say that "Swatch's intentions had stepped over the line between the appropriate and inappropriate use of a trade mark," Purvis added. The dispute is part of a broader battle between the Cupertino, California-based company and Swatch over the naming of watches that goes back to the launch of Apple's own product in 2015 when Apple was prevented from calling its version the 'iWatch'. The dispute with Swatch extended to other trademarks including the watchmaker's move to register 'Tick Different' evoking Apple's own slogan of 'Think Different.'
But wait ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
....Not available in any store!
Re: (Score:2)
Misleading headline (Score:4, Insightful)
The headline is very misleading.
Swatch, not Apple, is trying to trademark the phrase.
Apple is not claiming a trademark nor is Apple trying to stop anyone else from using the phrase.
Re: (Score:2)
Some next level trolling from Swatch. Taking it all the way to court shows dedication.
Who the fuck cares? (Score:3)
Does anyone outside of Apple care? Do Apple nerds care? Does anyone care?!
Re:Who the fuck cares? (Score:4, Interesting)
I was just jazzed to see a reference to Columbo.
Re: (Score:2)
As you wish.
Re: (Score:2)
He was great in Wings Of Desire. Peter Falk playing Peter Falk. A group of kids walk past him on the street and ask each other if that was really Columbo.
Cave tetra (Score:2)
Deep underground in caves in Texas and Mexico, the blind cave tetra lives. The cave tetra never comes to the surface , into the sunlight. Having no eyes, the blind cave tetra finds food with its sense of smell.
The blind cave tetra cares more about this story than I do.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm a watch guy and an Apple guy. Swatch sucks balls, and neither company faces any threat from the other (it's like complaining that pickup truck sales are eating into your potential bicycle sales). This whole thing is fucking stupid.
Corporations are not just legal persons... (Score:1)
Oh? Trademark claim on a public speaking? (Score:2)
The "one more thing" may be popularised in this industry by Jobs, but he's not the first to use it in presentations, and definitely not the last. I believe Nintendo ends all their Directs this way as well.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It was a catch phrase from the TV show Columbo which aired in 1968.
I don't know why anyone would pretend this is somehow an Apple thing, or some other tech company thing. This isn't something Jobs or any other tech, or watch company invented, it's a meme from a fucking 60s TV show that Jobs decided to use - I would say popularise, but it was already pretty popular from the TV show anyway.
Remember Apple Records, Tim? (Score:4, Insightful)
Priceless to see Apple complaining about its non-trademarks being "infringed" when Apple itself violated others' trademarks [wikipedia.org], including doing it willfully after agreeing not to.
Re: (Score:2)
SWATCH is the party trying to trademark this phrase, not Apple!
Re-read the title/FS:
Re: (Score:1)
Re-read the title/FS:
Yes, read the headline.
Then read the summary.
Did you notice that they contradict each other?
It is Swatch, not Apple, that is trying to trademark the phrase.
Re: (Score:1)
Did you notice that they contradict each other?
I fail to see how the title and summary contradict each other.
It is Swatch, not Apple, that is trying to trademark the phrase.
I never stated otherwise; I simply pointed out Apple's hypocrisy, given that they've infringed others' trademarks (repeatedly) in the past, when they're now trying to assert a trademark that isn't theirs to begin with (why else would they try to block it?)
Seems to me like this is a case of Apple being butthurt by Swatch over the years, and now also discovering that karma's a bitch.
Re: (Score:1)
I fail to see how the title and summary contradict each other.
Try reading them again.
The headline says "Apple Loses Bid To Stop Swatch Using Jobs's 'One More Thing' Cue."
Now read the summary.
The summary says that it is Swatch, not Apple, that is trying to trademark the phrase.
It is Swatch, not Apple, that is trying to assert a right to exclusive use of the phrase.
It is Swatch, not Apple, that is asserting a right to stop the other from using the phrase.
That is the opposite of what the headline says.
they're now trying to assert a trademark that isn't theirs to begin with
Apple is doing no such thing. Swatch is.
Re: (Score:1)
I fail to see how the title and summary contradict each other.
Try reading them again.
The headline says "Apple Loses Bid To Stop Swatch Using Jobs's 'One More Thing' Cue."
The way I read this title is as: "Apple tries to stop Swatch from registering 'One More Thing' as Trademark", or put another way: "Swatch wants to register 'One More Thing' as trademark, Apple tries but fails to stop it from doing so".
Both are consistent with the summary, which is that Swatch is trying to register a trademark (I'm in total agreement here as well):
Re: (Score:2)
Apple did NOT try to stop Swatch from "using" the phrase. So the headline is false. It is a lie.
No it's not false or a lie - Apple did try to stop Swatch from using it - as a trademark - as is clearly stated as context in the summary; you even said so yourself:
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this, since no one else here, nor anywhere else on the internet, has any trouble understanding this story as much as you do.
Re: (Score:2)
Priceless to see Apple complaining about its non-trademarks being "infringed" when Apple itself violated others' trademarks [wikipedia.org], including doing it willfully after agreeing not to.
Really, the Beatle's Apple Records thing?
Swatch (Score:2)
Swatches were cool for like 3 or 4 days in the 1980s if I recall. Add them to the huge list of companies that could have been great if they handed sat on their hands.
Re: (Score:2)
Who even knew they were still in business? A few rare models go for good money on ebay.
Re: (Score:2)
I still have one from 87. In great shape, cause it was only cool for 5 minutes, worth more than the $30 I paid in 87.
Re: (Score:2)
Early '90s, actually. I had to look it up on Wikipedia to get the years (1990-1993); but the only time Swatches were ever cool in my neck of the woods was when Parker Lewis Can't Lose ("Synchronize... Swatches!") was on the air.
The only other time Swatch was in any way notable was later on in the '90s when they got the notion that they could covert the world to "Universal Internet Time". It would have been metric; with days divided into 1000 "beats" to replace hours, minutes, and seconds. And, for some r
Re: (Score:2)
for some reason I don't recall, midnight 0000 would have actually been based on UTC+1
UTC+1 is Switzerland's timezone.
Re: (Score:2)
The Swatch group has done pretty great, considering they were formed from two bankrupt companies in 1983, and now control a large portion of the watch market. The Swatch brand was only their counter to Casio/Seiko/Citizen at the low end of the market. Now they are also manufacturing low end watches for many of the fashion brands, and they still have their luxury brands like Omega, Tissot and Longines, along with others they have acquired since.
What about "hello" ? (Score:4, Interesting)
What about the fact that Steve Jobs used to say "hello" when he meets someone? Shouldn't Apple have the right to patent, trademark, and copyright that? Steve Jobs after all helped to popularize greeting people with "hello." Remember when he called Starbucks from the iPhone introduction and greeted the barista using the word "hello" .. or when he called Jony Ive and said "hello"? Pretty sure Apple has a strong case.
Re:What about "hello" ? (Score:4, Informative)
Columbo (Score:2)
Columbo predates Steve Jobs' self-aggrandizing showmanship by a few decades. But like many things Apple, they just want the credit for something that is neither original nor interesting.
After reading this (Score:2)
I'm going to trademark "What the Fuck!"
Bad Ruling? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Bad Ruling? (Score:4, Informative)
But if "the phrase probably originated with the fictional TV detective Columbo", why is anyone allowed to trademark it?
The answer to that, according to Judge Iain Purvis, is that nobody is allowed to trademark it.
douche-bags with cash (Score:2)
I think this makes two things clear:
1. Apple has so much cash they don't know what to do with it, but decided on more lawyers.
2. Swatch looks like douche-bags for trying this crap.
And one more thing (Score:2)
A bunch of attorneys got paid for this horseshit.
Prior art (Score:2)
Some of us remember Detective Columbo saying that very same phrase, every episode. Usually as he announces the solution to the case.
Apple, Swatch, or both should be paying NBC royalties for that.
Re: (Score:1)