Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!
  • Did you order new AirTags? We've opened a dedicated AirTags forum.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
52,456
14,151


Apple has lost a legal bid to block Swatch from registering Steve Jobs' famous "One more thing" saying as a trademark in the UK, reports The Telegraph.

one-more-thing-november.jpg

Apple argued that the Swiss watchmaker had trademarked the slogan in "bad faith," as it has been associated with Apple for more than 20 years.

The late Steve Jobs often used the phrase to announce new products at the end of Apple presentations. Apple last used the slogan in reference to its Mac-focused virtual Apple event held in November 2020, when it announced the first Apple silicon Macs.

However, a High Court judge on Monday backed the Swiss watchmaker in the trademark row by overturning a previous decision that went Apple's way, despite the judge acknowledging that Swatch may have trademarked the phrase merely to irritate the tech giant.
On Monday, judge Iain Purvis overturned a previous decision that sided with Apple, saying that even if Swatch had meant to "annoy" Apple, the company could not stop it from doing so.

He added that the phrase may have originated with the 1970s television detective Columbo, a character who was known for cornering criminals by asking them "just one more thing."
This isn't the first time Apple and Swatch have faced off in court over trademark disputes. Apple had already failed to block Swatch from trademarking the phrase in Australia, and in years past the two companies have battled over other phrases commonly attributed to Apple.

In 2017, Apple filed a complaint in a Swiss court over the use of the slogan "Tick Different" in a Swatch marketing campaign, arguing that the watchmaker was unfairly referencing the Apple's 1990s "Think Different" ad campaign for its own gain.

In order to successfully win that case, Apple had to show that Swatch's use of the phrase triggered an association with Apple products in the minds of at least 50 percent of consumers.

Meanwhile, Swatch claimed its use of "Tick Different" had its origins in an 80s Swatch campaign that used the phrase "Always different, always new", and argued that any similarity with Apple was purely coincidental.

Two years later the Swiss court agreed with Swatch that Apple's "Think Different" was not known well enough in Switzerland to warrant protection, and that Apple had not produced documents that sufficiently backed up its case.

Before the Apple Watch launched, Apple and Swatch were rumored to be joining together on a smartwatch, but nothing came of it. Swatch filed an application for an "iSwatch" trademark when rumors first began swirling that Apple planned to enter the market. It later managed to block Apple's own UK trademark application for "iWatch."

Article Link: UK Court Backs Swatch in 'One More Thing' Trademark Row With Apple
 
Last edited:

waveman

macrumors regular
Jul 23, 2015
115
44
I"m slowly getting sick with Apple moves... Soon I won't be able to say "Hello" or "Good morning" without being scared that someone might call the police...

and ONE MORE THING: please allow me to replace battery in my own MacBook, and please allow my iPhone to work properly when it's cold instead of dying within minutes, as I'm planning to move to Mars. I'd also like to take proper wired earphones with me because it's impossible to listen to highest quality music with you crappy wireless ones. Oh, and please send me a phone charger, because it wasn't included - Yes, in a separate box, for the sake of the planet you know - and don't forget to charge me extra for that, also for the sake of the planet.

Sick f*****s. 💩
 
Last edited:
Comment

Robert.Walter

macrumors 68000
Jul 10, 2012
1,706
1,889
Since mid-2015 when the Apple Watch premiered, the stocks of the two companies reflects their past sales and future trajectories:
- Swatch -33%
- Apple, AAPL, +360%

Ticking different indeed … Perhaps Mr Hayek ought to focus on his knitting, right-sizing and saving his company rather than allowing his organization to engage in these pointless stupid negative things.

Full disclosure, I was a long time Omega wearer, and have maybe worn my Speedmaster <5 times since I bought my first Apple Watch in mid-2015. (I have a buddy and wife, who each have several (real) Rolexes, who, let them languish in their sock drawer. (Mine I’ve strapped onto the weight of my hall clock as “art” for lack of any better productive thing to do with them.)
 
Comment

David G.

macrumors 65816
Apr 10, 2007
1,112
468
Alaska
Since mid-2015 when the Apple Watch premiered, the stocks of the two companies reflects their past sales and future trajectories:
- Swatch -33%
- Apple, AAPL, +360%

Ticking different indeed … Perhaps Mr Hayek ought to focus on his knitting, right-sizing and saving his company rather than allowing his organization to engage in these pointless stupid negative things.

Full disclosure, I was a long time Omega wearer, and have maybe worn my Speedmaster <5 times since I bought my first Apple Watch in mid-2015. (I have a buddy and wife, who each have several (real) Rolexes, who, let them languish in their sock drawer. (Mine I’ve strapped onto the weight of my hall clock as “art” for lack of any better productive thing to do with them.)
Your buddies with several real Rolexes sitting in their sock drawer have had their resale values go up relative to what the resale values were at their beginning of the sock drawer nap, meanwhile any Apple Watch resale value would have plummeted faster than a rock falling from the heavens.
Also, many (most?) Rolexes this side of 15K are unobtainium at dealers for lack of any in stock. Been that way for several years now, too. Clearly they’re doing well for themselves. But enough about Rolexes, they’re not part of the Swatch group.
 
Last edited:
Comment

Naraxus

macrumors 65816
Oct 13, 2016
1,204
5,587
Apple should just buy swatch, and give the money back to the shareholders.
Considering Swatch is one of the largest watch conglomerates on Earth, yeah that ain't happening:

 
Comment

alexe

macrumors member
Nov 5, 2014
40
202
It is beyond ridiculous that it's even possible to trademark phrases like these, beyond ridiculous of Swatch to actually go ahead and do it, and beyond ridiculous of Apple to go after companies that use phrases that are "similar" to the slogans Apple uses (or used).
 
Last edited:
Comment

robinp

macrumors 6502a
Feb 1, 2008
619
1,137
Considering Swatch is one of the largest watch conglomerates on Earth, yeah that ain't happening:

The market cap of Swatch is something like $15bn. Apple could buy it in cash 10 times and still have around $100bn left over.
 
Comment

Schnegg

macrumors regular
Oct 9, 2017
115
183
Very funny! Swatch is definitely trying to annoy Apple and probably benefits more from this stunt. The Swiss watch industry is involved in these legal shenanigans ever since Apple blatantly copied the Swiss Railway watch face (some early iOS version) and of course because of the watch.
 
Comment

David G.

macrumors 65816
Apr 10, 2007
1,112
468
Alaska
The market cap of Swatch is something like $15bn. Apple could buy it in cash 10 times over and still have around $100bn left over.
You don’t buy a company out of spite just to ruin them. You buy a company to get what they offer to make your own company better (simplistically explained).
Swatch, having quartz, automatic and mechanical watches, has nothing Apple wants. What pure nonsense that suggestion was. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.
 
Comment

Kabeyun

macrumors 68040
Mar 27, 2004
3,050
5,726
Eastern USA
Of course it does.

I"m slowly getting sick with Apple moves... Soon I won't be able to say "Hello" or "Good morning" without being scared that someone might the police..
Whan u can "claim" a square with rounded edges and sue a company for using a pear logo, your ego/mind gets twisted...
You did read as far as the beginning of the article right? The first sentence, actually? The part where it says that Swatch, not Apple, is pursuing the trademark?
 
Last edited:
Comment

robinp

macrumors 6502a
Feb 1, 2008
619
1,137
You don’t buy a company out of spite just to ruin them. You buy a company to get what they offer to make your own company better (simplistically explained).
Swatch, having quartz, automatic and mechanical watches, has nothing Apple wants. What pure nonsense that suggestion was. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.
You’re replying to a different point entirely about whether apple would buy swatch.

I was replying to someone saying apple couldn’t buy swatch. Quite clearly they could. But they won’t.
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.