Swiss Court Backs Swatch in 'Tick Different' Trademark Row With Apple

[C DM]

I disagree. Trademark law is intended to protect marks used by companies so they have a distinctive way to identify their products. In this case, it seems reasonable that people would not get confused by Tick Different and associate it with Apple and not Swatch. Absent such potential confusion, Swatch should be free to use Tick Different.

What about the aspect of just taking the marketing work of another company and basically benefiting from it and using it essentially in the same way?

 

[Khedron]

What about the aspect of just taking the marketing work of another company and basically benefiting from it and using it essentially in the same way?

What benefit?

 

[C DM]

What benefit?

How about the simple one of not spending any time or effort on marketing and just taking someone else's work essentially?

 

[jlc1978]

What about the aspect of just taking the marketing work of another company and basically benefiting from it and using it essentially in the same way?

Unless I missed something Swatch isn't running ads of famous people with the tag line Tick Different.
You could argue Apple used IBM's Think as well; even if it was not a direct lift.
Apple hasn't used it in advertisements , at best it was slipped into packaging to retain the trademark on "Think Different."
The bottom line is there is little chance someone in the CH will confuse Tick Different with Apple's over 17 year old old Think Different ad; so the court made the right call.

 

[C DM]

Unless I missed something Swatch isn't running ads of famous people with the tag line Tick Different.
You could argue Apple used IBM's Think as well; even if it was not a direct lift.
The bottom line is there is little chance someone in the CH will confuse Tick Different with Apple's 17 year old old Think Different ad; so the court made the right call.

I wasn't necessarily commenting on the recognition but on the work product essentially.

 

[jlc1978]

I wasn't necessarily commenting on the recognition but on the work product essentially.

Fair enough; but Swatch didn't really copy the work product. They may (or may not) have been inspired by Think Different but a lot of creative works drew inspiration from others.

 

[apolloa]

Apple never sued that cafe. They wrote to the owner to object to her trademark application unless she agreed not to use the logo on electronic devices.

Well this report states a 2 year legal to and fro followed that one letter sent by Apple, not sure about suing but a lot more then a simple one off ‘letter’, and Apple lost.

http://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/07/apfelkind-cafe-trademark-battle-apple-germany

 

[Alan Wynn]

The Apple Watch is more of an iPhone accessory, which is fine and I like smartwatches as a subsection of watches.

Of course Apple Watch can't begin to compete with quality mechanical watches, but then I would also prefer a $100 G-Shock that can go 10+ years without service if I could hypothetically only choose one watch.

By compete you mean sell more and be more profitable (currently true of the Apple Watch) or are you using some other metric?

 

[Khedron]

By compete you mean sell more and be more profitable (currently true of the Apple Watch) or are you using some other metric?

Apple cancelled their Apple Watch Edition because it was such a failure. They now stick to the low-end smartwatch/fitness tracker segment.

 

[jlc1978]

By compete you mean sell more and be more profitable (currently true of the Apple Watch) or are you using some other metric?

For me, it’s a matter of why you buy one over the other. Both tell time, but have far different characteristics in terms of style, history, aesthetics, etc. Watches can be passed done from generation to generation, tying them together.

Most watch collectors would not consider an Apple Watch in those terms, even if they wear one. So in that sense they are not competitors in the market place.

 

[mw360]

Well this report states a 2 year legal to and fro followed that one letter sent by Apple, not sure about suing but a lot more then a simple one off ‘letter’, and Apple lost.

http://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/07/apfelkind-cafe-trademark-battle-apple-germany

Hi there, Apple didn’t lose, because there wasn’t a lawsuit. It just looks like she and Apple came to an agreement. Boring compared to the headlines I know but most stuff usually is.

 

[sidewinder3000]

I disagree. Trademark law is intended to protect marks used by companies so they have a distinctive way to identify their products. In this case, it seems reasonable that people would not get confused by Tick Different and associate it with Apple and not Swatch. Absent such potential confusion, Swatch should be free to use Tick Different.

Except that measuring peoples familiarity with the think different campaign is very difficult to do. And this particular ad was absolutely, 100% based off of that old Apple campaign. There is no reason to put those words together unless you are referencing the Apple ads. Otherwise, it’s a nonsense phrase.

Add to that the fact that Apple now makes watches, and it is completely inappropriate. Sorry, but this is just wrong.