Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

UK Court Backs Swatch in 'One More Thing' Trademark Row With Apple

Anyway I’m trademarking ALBERT EINSTEIN

I have a shoe box. I sprayed it black and glued a switch on the top.

Flip the switch to the left time moves forward. Flip the switch to the right time moves backwards for everyone except you.

A knob on the side controls the speed of light. FK relativity.

I’m going to Shilling Cons Valley to pitch the ALBERT EINSTEIN. I’m going to list the Einstein Company through a SPAC.

I’m going to fake the accounts like Elon and say I sold a billion units of my magic black box and on Twitter I will raise an army of trolls to buy stonks in my bogus company.

Unlimited wealth, power and outer space awaits.
 
Swatch is a bunch of dicks apparently as is the UK trademark office. How can they trademark Columbo’s phrase that predated all of this? It should’ve failed on prior art.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: Stenik
So, Swatch is trolling Apple. Apple has lawyers that protect the brand. This is common and fairly uneventful. I wouldn't read too much into it. Swatch got some publicity (good, since I didn't even know they were still around, and I was alive when they were first popular).
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: Stenik
Every time I hear this phrase, I immediately think of Lt. Columbo.

Oh, and uh, one more thing... if anyone has a right to this trademark, it's NBC/Universal Studios since they've used it since 1971. But you don't hear them complaining 😂
 
Naraxus said:
Where did I say they couldn't?
Click to expand...
Maybe you wrote something and didn’t mean it. Certainly I and many others have taken your original comment to be about how Apple couldn’t buy swatch because swatch is such a big company. If you intended a different meaning, maybe you could articulate what you actually meant?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Naraxus
I doubt this about Swatch as a product.

Apple is probably crushing Swatch's Tissot line because the Apple watch is, IMHO, a vastly superior product at the same price point.
 
Intellectual property has become more nationalistic. These decisions are clearly nonsense and it seems very unlikely that if Apple were to run Think Different campaigns or broadcast Tim Cook describing "one more thing" on an Apple watch event that Swatch would have any possibility of securing damages.

Apple just needs to show that they are defending their IP and will just outcompete these dinosaurs.
 
Swatch is a watch pioneer that was hugely popular in the 1980s long before Apple so Swatch carries more weight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PC_tech
robinp said:
The market cap of Swatch is something like $15bn. Apple could buy it in cash 10 times and still have around $100bn left over.
Click to expand...
Nah, they can’t, their tax avoidance schemes prevent them from being able to use their cash for such purchases without paying tax.
mytawalbeh said:
Why would a company trademark such a phrase? And use another for their campaign sounds the same of Apple’s one? And seriously iSwatch?!
Swatch is buthurt troll company.
Click to expand...
lol, sounds like Apple and their fans here are the ones who are butthurt. One of the worlds largest companies can’t even keep cool when faced with some minor trolling. Pretty pathetic, honestly. Apple should just release a press release that says “Apple stomps it’s feet at Swatch in the most petulant terms! We find this unacceptable, and will co to use to cry about it until our shareholders give us our bottle and take us home.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cole Slaw and PC_tech
Wow, I guess Swatch determined they cannot possibly compete with Apple on the watch front, and are now resorting to vitriolic obstructionist tactics using government as a weapon against their competitors.
 
David G. said:
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.
Click to expand...
As I understand it Dusenberg Model Js have only gone up in value since the Dusenberg Company went bankrupt. Since then, their owners and drivers have rarely said they would prefer them as their daily drivers.
 
I'm sure Apple would have trademarked "One more thing" if it had seen it as a phrase that could be trademarked. It looks like Swatch's lawyers outfoxed Apple's lawyers. Whoda thunkit. It's really sad that they did that.

Think of all those late night commercial sites that are going to have to pay royalties to Swatch every time they say, "One more thing if you buy within the next 10 minutes we'll include . . ."
 
Last edited:
CthuluLemon said:
Nah, they can’t, their tax avoidance schemes prevent them from being able to use their cash for such purchases without paying tax.
Click to expand...

Possibly, but it isn't really relevant to the point. The fact that apple makes enough profit each quarter to buy swatch kind of makes it a moot point. Even paying 50% tax (no way would it be that high), they could fund it in 6 months of earnings without using reserves.
 
Robert.Walter said:
As I understand it Dusenberg Model Js have only gone up in value since the Dusenberg Company went bankrupt. Since then, their owners and drivers have rarely said they would prefer them as their daily drivers.
Click to expand...
That's not even apples/oranges. That's like comparing apples to watermelons. Soooo different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PC_tech
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back