Skip to main content

Swiss-based watchmaker Swatch anticipating Apple’s market entry by fighting for ‘iWatch’ trademark

Swiss-based watch maker Swatch is not thrilled about an impending Apple wearable device or the rumored name “iWatch.”:

Screen Shot 2014-05-03 at 10.04.17 AM

The company is seeking to block Apple trademarks for the name “iWatch” because of its own line of watches called “ISwatch.” A representative for Swatch told Watson:

We assess the likelihood of confusion as given, the marks are confusingly similar. In all countries where the mark is registered, we go against it before.

While Swatch says it will fight the trademarks, the watch maker will not give specifics as to how it plans to do so. According to U.S. government filings, Swatch has moved in the past to block companies from registering the iWatch trademark:

Screen Shot 2014-05-03 at 10.09.03 AM

 

Apple has trademarked the word iWatch in several countries, including Japan, Mexico, and Turkey. The iWatch is expecting to arrive as soon as later this year and include health and fitness functionality.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

You’re reading 9to5Mac — experts who break news about Apple and its surrounding ecosystem, day after day. Be sure to check out our homepage for all the latest news, and follow 9to5Mac on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay in the loop. Don’t know where to start? Check out our exclusive stories, reviews, how-tos, and subscribe to our YouTube channel

Comments

  1. zBrain (@joeregular) - 10 years ago

    good. imo Apple can do better than “iWatch”.

    • irelandjnr - 10 years ago

      Couldn’t disagree more. The simplicity of the name is everything, just as iPhone is the best name ever for a phone.

      • Mr. Grey (@mister_grey) - 10 years ago

        iPhone is the “best name ever” for a phone, because it’s still a phone, despite all the other things it can do. It’s primary usage is as a phone, and all (or most) of it’s secondary uses are as a communications device.

        iWatch is a bad name for the purported product in question, because by all accounts, it won’t actually be a watch. It’s primary purpose is as sensors for health related apps, and it’s secondary purpose is as an adjunct to the phone (communications & intelligent agent).

        Somewhere way, way, way down the list of things the new device can purportedly do … is the fact that it’s also a watch.

        An “iWatch” would only be a watch in the sense that everything that has a time function in it is a watch. From about 1974 onwards, there have been “watches” put into everything from pens, to cereal boxes. That doesn’t make them “watches.” In fact “watches” as a category have all but died out.

        As has been pointed out many times, most people wear a watch nowadays as jewellery, not to tell time. The obvious indicator of this trend is the fact that most watches sold today are almost impossible to read. They are on your wrist as a way to show off and to be admired, not to tell you the time.

      • irelandjnr - 10 years ago

        You’re over thinking it Mr. Grey.

      • Jerry Ramirez - 10 years ago

        Great insight Mr. Grey, I think you are correct in your analysis and distinctions between the 2 terms.

      • Mike Knopp (@mknopp) - 10 years ago

        Mr. Grey, I pretty much agree. I have said for a while now that I don’t think Apple will be releasing a watch, they will be releasing a biosensing device that might also tell time.

        Just because it is worn on the wrist and tells time doesn’t make it a watch. The Fitbit Force could display the time and was worn on the wrist, but I haven’t heard anyone call it a watch. Primarily because as you said its primary purpose is as an activity monitor.

      • Mathieu Lamanque - 10 years ago

        iWatch is by far the best name. Although it’ll be capable of doing a lot of things, it still has to be familiar and friendly. That’s why Apple will be the first to truly penetrate the consumer market with wearables. It may have a ton of functionality but at the end of the day it will still feel like a watch. People will buy it as a watch with a ton of cool features instead of a tiny computer that happens to have a watch app. That’s the genius of Apple. They’re able to make new technology approachable by making it familiar and comfortable while at the same time new and exciting. Just my opinion.

    • Jerry Ramirez - 10 years ago

      I agree, a better name than iWatch should be a goal for Apple for this device.

    • eninety2 - 10 years ago

      Mr. Grey is spot on.

  2. wliston2 - 10 years ago

    And iSwatch didn’t get their idea from Apple by putting an “i” in front of whatever they make? Hope Apple bury’s you Swatch

    • irelandjnr - 10 years ago

      Agreed. Swatch wanting to block Apple naming their watch iWatch is anticompetitive. I think given Apple’s 15-year using usage of the i-prefix in many forms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBook) they should be allowed to use the name iWatch. If there is an i before a product the public thinks Apple. It’s only fair.

      • rzozaya1969 - 10 years ago

        Okay.. idiot starts with an i… when I think Idiot, should I think of Apple? I don’t think so…

        I think, but I’m not sure that Compac started with the iPac, but I’m not sure.

        In part, I think it’s fairer to start to stop something before than trying to sue latter….

      • South Jersey Droid - 10 years ago

        And how about when Apple sued the Polish Deli because their website was a.pl??? Apple thinks they own everything, but they don’t. The iWatch would be a blatant rip off of the ISWATCH, and everyone knows it.

  3. David Schwab - 10 years ago

    These companies crack me up, because if they are putting an “i” before a name, they are copying Apple in the first place. Apple did it first with the iMac (internet Mac), and then followed suit with the iPod, iPhone, iTunes, iMovie, iPhoto, iWork, iCoud, iBook, etc. That’s Apple thing. So Swatch using ISwatch is copying Apple already.

    • jtmacleod - 10 years ago

      Are we rewriting history here?

      There was an “iPhone” in 1998 by Infogear. Cisco has been using IOS since the mid-90s, as well.

      Sure, lots of people follow this trend because Apple does it, but they are neither the creators nor the only ones to do this. Prepending an “i” for “internet” has been a thing for a long while, man.

      • Amen to that.

        Now David, stop being an iSheep.

      • irelandjnr - 10 years ago

        You guys have no idea how trademarks work. Were the general public confused that Apple’s iPhone or its operating system were either of those products, no because no one ever heard of those products before. Knowing how trademark law works is not being a sheep, or a-sleep; it’s being awake. Try it sometime.

      • Mr. Grey (@mister_grey) - 10 years ago

        @jtmacleod: You are incorrect. Your examples are correct, but irrelevant (esp. “IOS”).

        Here and there, people and companies have indeed prepended the “i for Internet” on their products, but mostly sporadically, mostly on marginal (or failed) products, or as placeholders for services that never came to fruition. Almost all of these actually FOLLOWED the introduction of the practice by Apple.

        Apple started this when Steve Jobs came back to the company in 1998 with the first release of the first “iMacs.” They have followed it up year after year, with product after product, and have (a few times) been copied by others. It’s been their central branding for over 16 years and they have shipped many hundreds of millions of products (worth many billions of dollars) using it.

        Trademark law would therefore suggest that Apple actually “owns” the “i for Internet” at least on computer products for this reason alone. Barring a clear example of a currently selling computer related product bearing EXACTLY the same name, ‘iWatch” is theirs if they want it.

      • David Schwab - 10 years ago

        OK, true, but you are slightly rewriting history:

        “On September 3, 1993, Infogear filed for the US trademark “I PHONE” and on March 20, 1996, applied for the trademark “IPhone”.[287] “I Phone” was registered in March 1998, and “IPhone” was registered in 1999. Since then, the I PHONE mark had been abandoned.”

        So they never had ‘iPhone,” with the lower case “i” as a trademark, although they did release an iPhone in 1998. And then Cisco bought them and the name. And of course they ended up licensing the name to Apple. And there were other companies using an IPHONE name of some type or another.

        But the iPhone didn’t come first. It was named after other Apple products. Apple came out with the iMac in 1998, it was the first time most people saw an iName like that. Then you started seeing imitators, like the Compaq iPaq. Oh yeah, but they were’t copying the iMac. Brian Moore guitars has the iGuitar. There are other examples. Do you think they copied Inforgear? Did anyone even hear of the Infogear iPhone before Apple came out with theirs?

        Same with iOS. It was the iPhone OS for a while. Remember the naming issues with Mac OS 9 vs. OS-9? Same with the Cisco IOS. Unless you were really into router/switches would you have even heard of it?

        So the point is, it’s about context. And in this context Swatch is copying Apple.

      • cincinnatils1 - 10 years ago

        I think the first time apple used the “i” monicker was when Steve Jobs came back and was the interim CEO, or iCEO, as he styled it.

        The “I” in the Infogear IPhone stood for Infogear, not Internet.

        The “I” in Cisco’s IOS technically stood for “internetwork” rather than “internet”

      • Martin Andreas Kruse - 10 years ago

        IPHONE as I remember reading about the trademark issues after Apples launch of the iPhone in 2007, was that it was a VoIP phone (Voice over IP), shortened to IPhone.

      • marsontherocks - 10 years ago

        Or rather (Voice over) Internet Protocol (IP) Phone

  4. fredhstein - 10 years ago

    I’ve always thought “iWatch” was lame. More importantly, misses the point. The wrist device is a notifier, not a watch. Who knows, call it “iPod something” or ??

  5. that’s a bit bold, to say the least, for a lame watchmaker that copies Apple’s branding (iSomething) in the first place.

    I hope Apple sues them to oblivion (or makes Samesung buy them out… maybe then they’ll produce a decent watch, by their standards at least :) )

    • Bruno Fernandes (@Linkb8) - 10 years ago

      A “lame watchmaker?” Swatch is the world’s biggest watch maker and the Swatch Group, including subsidiaries make Omega, Longine, Tag Heuer and many other well known marques. Swatch Group is responsible for saving the Swiss watch industry in the early 80’s.

      What Apple would likely do is pay Swatch if it intends to use the iWatch mark. Buying the company would also be interesting, but IMO, it’s just too much money and the product lines too diverse. But at least with some collaboration they’d be free of all the wrist allergies that every other johny-come-lately has been plagued with. Al these guys are reinventing the wheel and screwing it up as they go, instead of consulting or even partnering with someone who already has decades of experience in wearables.

      • o0smoothies0o - 10 years ago

        It’s not something that requires experience, but rather, intelligence. A watch is infinitely simple.

      • Maybe they’ve bought lots of serious brands over the years, but Swatch watches themselves are and have never been, imo, nothing to crave for. Maybe they’re popular among teens and people in their early 20s, but I don’t think anywhere above that.

        Swatch was acting lamely or even mocking Apple’s success with the iSwatch, because in people’s minds, in public perception, iSomething means Apple. Others have produced iDevices before Apple, but it’s with Apple that the names stuck. For example, who else knew about Cisco’s IOS (the OS in their routers and some switches) except Cisco nerds?

        Then again, from some quick research I discovered that the iSwatch was introduced in mid-2013, when iWatch rumours were already going full swing. So, was Swatch trying to do a Samsung here? Or are they after free publicity? Very likely the latter.

        I project that if you put an(y) iSwatch and the iWatch side by side, it’s very likely that nobody will even glimpse on the Swatch product(s). This is what I think Swatch’s people are afraid of or trying to take advantage of.

  6. iPadCary - 10 years ago

    Those dopes have, quite unsurprisingly, got it ALL WRONG.
    It most certainly will NOT be called “iWatch”.
    It WILL be called: “iBand”.

    • I agree that iBand is a much more likely name than iWatch. Telling time will be the least of its technical capabilities. An afterthought.

    • irelandjnr - 10 years ago

      Look, guys, keep it simple. It’ll be called iWatch and you’ll deal with it.

    • aronvdherik - 10 years ago

      They will call it iWatch, it’s simple.
      They called their phone iPhone, even though it can do way more than just calling and texting, like a ‘normal’ phone.
      Therefor they will call their watch iWatch, even though it will do way more than just telling you the time, like a ‘normal’ watch.

      • o0smoothies0o - 10 years ago

        iWatch for watching health biosensors, not the time. They’re going to change the definition of a watch. Telling time will of course be of as little consequence as it is on the iPhone, it’s just ‘obviously’ there. Same with notification alerts (not pertaining to health).

      • irelandjnr - 10 years ago

        I’m amazed at how it’s not completely obvious to everyone that this will be called iWatch.

    • telecastle - 10 years ago

      It will be called iBrace.

    • That’s what I was thinking.

    • zackpsimpson - 10 years ago

      “iBand” has way too many connotations that are unrelated to the context of a watch or fitness wearable. A band can be many different things: a group of musicians; a company of people having a common purpose; a thin, flimsy strip used for binding; shackles used for imprisonment. I doubt consumers want to purchase a product that reminds them of chains.

      Instead, the name “iWatch” fully embodies the true purpose of a wearable on the wrist: having relevant information at a glance whenever the user desires it, and then some.

      Mark my words, if this upcoming wearable is called the iBand, I’ll eat my hat.

  7. MaRico NoHands Spikes - 10 years ago

    They can easily put a ‘This is not to be confused with ‘ disclaimer

  8. I would think that Samsung would be more pissed than Swatch. After their failure of the “Gear,” Samsung won’t be able to call their next generation of junk as “sWatch.”

    • aronvdherik - 10 years ago

      Samsung might even have thought of bringing out their sWatch, since it’s a widely know ‘fact’ that Apple it going to bring out their iWatch this year. But just like Swatch is trying to prevent Apple for launching an iWatch, because the names are alike, Swatch would have a much stronger case against a ‘sWatch’, because the names are basically the same.

      • irelandjnr - 10 years ago

        Samsung would’t have a hope of calling their watch sWatch.

  9. varera (@real_varera) - 10 years ago

    First, Swatch has ruined Swiss luxury watch industries, now they want to block iWatch in Switzerland? Are they nuts or just greedy?

  10. georgebeach - 10 years ago

    The entire Swiss watch industry has been lame since the arrival of Japanese watches. It has been kept afloat by the Swiss government. The whole “Swatch” enterprise has been playing catch up since the arrival of Japanese watches after their recovery post WW2, when the American watch industry abandoned the effort in the early 1960’s, marketing Swiss movement under American names. Timex (a holding company for the Norwegian crown money), nearly alone, was making watches in Little Rock, Arkansas, with Bulova holding on in New York. Hopeless to try to defeat Apple in this game, and I and others call into question the notion of Apple making watches in the first place. Sure, and Apple will be manufacturing televisions, too. Dream on. Good luck, Switzerland. And the Swiss may make a deal with Apple, so who can really say if the long-rumored Apple timekeeper business will ever even begin.

  11. André Hedegaard Petersen - 10 years ago

    This is good news. It means that I’ll never buy a Swatch, if they’re that pathetic and lowly. Thank you Swatch for determining my future purchase plans :)
    Fucking tools!

  12. Mr. Grey (@mister_grey) - 10 years ago

    I hope Swatch wins. “iWatch” is the worst name for a product that only has time-keeping features as a tertiary feature. It won’t look like a watch, it won’t function like a watch, so why use “iWatch”?

    I’m thinking that whatever fool it was that believed that naming OS X after “famous cool places in California!” was a good idea, is also behind “iWatch.”

    • whatyoutalkingboutwillis - 10 years ago

      You could’ve made the same argument for the IPhone. It didn’t look like a phone, it didn’t function like a phone.

    • o0smoothies0o - 10 years ago

      iWatch health metrics. Not iWatch the time.

    • irelandjnr - 10 years ago

      “iWatch” is not lame, it’s simple. Just say iWatch and you already know it’s an Apple product and you wear it on your wrist. And it’s easy to remember. It’s a slam dunk.

      • rzozaya1969 - 10 years ago

        Yep… Apple has made the i a term in the people’s mind…

  13. qj201 - 10 years ago

    iWear, because that’s the point isn’t it? I wearable device.
    iComm, as it the features of the iWhatever seem to be like a Star Trek communicator.

    • zoidbert - 10 years ago

      I like iComm; I sometimes refer to my iPhone as my Communicator, though it’s really more of a Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, isn’t it?

      That said, I still would love to have seen Apple go with PADD for the iPad (bought the rights to the name, like they did with Mighty Mouse).

      • herb02135go - 10 years ago

        Galaxy? That’s Samsung!
        (groan)

  14. ronie678 - 10 years ago

    Reblogged this on Ronak's Apple iNews.

  15. Nick Parry - 10 years ago

    I could see it being called “iWear”

    • irelandjnr - 10 years ago

      iWatch tells you what it is and where you wear it. iWear tells you nothing and isn’t at all as punchy.

      • herb02135go - 10 years ago

        I like Iware. (copyright pending)
        It’s hardware that makes you aware.

  16. Matt Sims - 10 years ago

    Companies (including Swatch) only started putting i in-front of anything once the iMac came out anyway so to claim entitlement is a bit rich…

  17. Sean Wright - 10 years ago

    What’s funny is that Apple hasn’t even formally announced they are producing a watch yet Swatch is already trying to block it.

  18. drtyrell969 - 10 years ago

    God, I can’t wait to wear the ugliest nerdfesting watch ever made.

  19. Warren Cook - 10 years ago

    How about iTime?

  20. smigit - 10 years ago

    After dozen’s of articles about an up and comming ‘iWatch’, I think this is the first time that any possible confusion between that device and anything Swatch has delivered has been mentioned (by Swatch no less). No one is or will be confused about it.

    Clearly its an attempt to capitilise on the ‘i’ branding that Apple popularised 15 years ago. They’re probably hoping Apple will settle out of court rather than defend it. Hopefully this goes nowhere. I’m all for protecting legitimate trademarks, but Swatch don’t own all terms starting with the character ‘i’ and certainly Apples current portfolio of products makes their claim to it quite strong anyway.

  21. jason (@zhaojing1834) - 10 years ago

    Group chat! Sticker! Here is the only Mac app can do all of them.
    https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/astro-for-facebook-messenger/id726828968?mt=12

  22. Michael Jeffrey Valadez - 10 years ago

    More than a name, a 60-billion dollar watch market is at stake. Swatch is a lead manufacturer and will be the first to feel the pinch. Swatch resents having to compete with Apple Inc.

  23. zoidbert - 10 years ago

    To hell with anyone who says Apple is stealing from them when using iAnything — pretty much all of this came after Apple started the trend with the iMac in ’98; it’s the trademark equivalent of a patent troll.

    On the same token, I agree that Apple can do better than iWatch.

  24. protaginets - 10 years ago

    This is silly to no end. Who in their worst drunken stupor would confuse Swatch with Apple?

  25. b9bot - 10 years ago

    Have fun with that.

  26. heymuzzwatchadoin - 10 years ago

    Apple should be suing Swatch and everyone else with an “i” moniker. If it wasn’t for Apple and the revolutionary iMac in ’98, any and all “i” device and names would be meaningless. Apple OWNS “i” and always will.

  27. raptoroo7 - 9 years ago

    Actually you should read up before you post regarding Swatch, iSwatch and who OWNS the trademark on iWatch since it was not and has never been Apple. http://www.techtimes.com/articles/68963/20150716/its-apple-watch-but-irish-firm-probendi-sues-apple-for-iwatch-trademark.htm it belongs to an Irish company Probendi.

    “Probendi filed a petition in a Milan court on June 26 that accuses Apple of violating the iWatch trademark held by Probendi in the European Union since 2008.” so clearly Apple didn’t for see their own plans for a watch until Samsung did it.