A European trademark holder has filed a lawsuit against Apple over the name ‘iWatch‘, despite the fact that the company’s own product was ultimately named Apple Watch. The issue it seems is paid promotion on Google search ads when the term “iWatch” is searched. Since Apple’s smartwatch was long rumored to be called the iWatch, and many regulars (including Tim Cook) still refer to it as such, Cupertino figured people would search for ‘iWatch’ when looking for its new device and took out some Google ads for the keyword to take advantage. Search for ‘iWatch’ yourself and you’ll almost certainly see a link to Apple Watch as the top result…
Probendi, the company behind the lawsuit, took issue with this as it owns the European rights to the iWatch trademark. Probendi’s complaint, filed on June 26 in Milan (revealed by Bloomberg), reads as follows: “Apple has systematically used iWatch wording on Google search engine in order to direct customers to its own website, advertising Apple Watch.”
Head on over to the company’s own homepage and you’ll see that’s practically all the company wants you to know about. It doesn’t say what iWatch is or does, but it wants to make darn sure we know that it has the trademark. We’ll forget for a second that the announcement comes alongside an image of a fascia-less Nokia 3310.
Probendi Limited is the sole entity lawfully entitled to use the name “iWatch” for products such as “Apple Watch” within the European Union, and will promptly take all appropriate legal actions to oppose any unauthorized use of “iWatch” by whomever for that kind of products.
Apple — of course — is no stranger to trademark claims from smaller companies. Let’s not forget the iPad naming lawsuit from a Chinese company whose own ‘iPad’ was, ironically, a direct iMac copycat. In that regard, it’s no surprise to see yet another small-time company trying to gain from Apple’s success. It has happened many times in the past and will almost certainly continue in the future.
Although this specific lawsuit isn’t the only reason Apple had to choose not to use ‘iWatch’ as a brand name, this particular case is just a small drop in an ocean of inevitable court cases that would have happened. Probendi won’t have been the only company in the world to try and register ‘iWatch’ as a trademark before Apple launched its smart watch. Swatch even tried to block the iWatch name from entering the market because of its iSwatch.
Companies weren’t foolish to expect an iWatch to land either. For months, even years, before it was announced we were calling it iWatch. There’s plenty of evidence to suggest that’s what employees were calling it behind the scenes. Apple even registered the trademark overseas, in more than one country.
If that’s not evidence in itself, let’s not forget Tim Cook called it an iWatch (by mistake) too:
Clearly then, Apple had considered calling it iWatch for some time and was forced to switch. Not alienating the fashion community could conceivably be part of it. Avoiding vain lawsuits like these was also certainly a factor. If Apple can face lawsuits over the iWatch moniker without even using the name, imagine how bad it’d be if they did.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Apple is slowing moving away from the ‘i’ prefix. The Apple watch name fits in with the plan perfectly.
Apple Watch is a much better name. Besides, some of their products will never be allowed to be called iProduct. Example: Apple TV can’t be iTV because of the iTV tv station.
I’m think you are rignt. Maybe Apple is leaving the ‘iDevice’ moniker for the ‘full consumer computers’: iMac, iPhone, iPad, iPod… See, the Mac Pro has no ‘i,’ neither the Apple TV nor the Apple WATCH, Apple MUSIC.
(I think that they also are writing the names all in caps, but I’m not sure.)
Apple watch is a better name. iTV is a better name.
No, I don’t think iWatch was in the cards. The fact is, it comes down to name registration. Apple has Apple and they can cleanly claim that and attach it to any product with little issue.
Its also common practice for Apple to buy up any ‘possible’ name that could be construed as associated with Apple. Even if they had zero intent of using iWatch, they would have gone for it in most places because of iPhone and iPad and people would have thought, iWatch.. and they knew it.
A ‘Kleenex’ is a tissue; a ‘Kodak’ is/was a camera; an ‘iPad’ is a tablet. Few people ask for a tissue, they want a ‘Kleenex’, even if you give them a piece of toiletpaper. Many people in this iWorld have tablets; most of them will refer to it as an ‘iPad’ even if it is a ‘PlayBook’. and, by the way, what’s an iWatch?
MANY people in the UK say “I’m going to do the ‘hoovering’ whereas they mean vacuuming. Hover is a brand but is synonymous with ‘vacuuming’.
I think it’s preposterous to say that Apple all along wanted to call it the iWatch. Based on what? A decade of using the i (for Internet) prefix moniker? No no no, eye see this differently. Tim could’ve referred to (then then dreamed up by the media) Apple’s smartwatch by using their term, iWatch. Tim, or Apple, certainly were never the first to use that name.
Should they wanted to call it iWatch it would’ve implied it needs an Internet connection, which would be foolish if one aspect of the Watch is to use it for running, listening to music with a paired BT headset.
What about iPod? does the ‘i’ mean it needs an internet connection?
Good point! But remember that the name ‘iPod’ was already taken by Apple for a presentation or something like that ‘pod’ (maybe, it had internet connection) that never took fly, and when they were unable to find a good name to the music box they took this one.
You got it wrong. iPad, iPhone, iPod. The i is not for internet. It is a reference to the personal pronoun “I” and the fact that these devices are very personal devices.
I really think Apple was going to call it iWatch. It makes perfect sense, a watch being on the wrist makes it one of the most personal devices.
Wrong, wrong and wrong. The “i” iteration began with the first iMac, and as it was explained on its release. Ken Segal from Apples ad agency came up with the name, after Steve Jobs wanted to call it MacMan, As Ken Segal explained, the “i” stood for internet. All other products thereafter were name with the “i”, for internet, nothing else.
” Probendi won’t have been …” is this even ENGLISH? if so, please direct me to the proper grammar books.
I believe it’s called the “future perfect continuous” tense, and, as far as I know, it’s perfectly standard English grammar. (I don’t think it’s use in that sentence is semantically correct, however: The times and tenses don’t match.)
It’s actually past perfect conditional. It means that other companies probably also tried to register the name iWatch.
In response to both of you, it is simply “future perfect”. Continuous refers to which verb is used in that tense, not the tense itself. It is not past perfect because “won’t” means “will not”, and it is not conditional because it means “will not”, not “would not”.
I’m pretty sure if they wanted “iWatch”, they’d get it. There is little you can’t, with $200bln in the bank…
60 million for this, plus 300 million for that, you’ll run out of cash real quick…
Also, it’s irresponsible, when you run a company, that has workers that need to work really hard for way less money.
Whatever they want…
My question is, does Probendi actually make a watch?
No they don’t. They were probably expecting Apple to pay them big money for the use of the iWatch name.
probendi is nothing, just some schmuck who registered a name because he had some extra cash. Troll, nothing more.
I like the Apple WATCH better than the iWatch, for a name.
I’ve always thought “iProduct” represented the Jobs Apple era and “Apple PRODUCT” represents the Cook era of Apple.
No, they are simply moving away from iEverything. It’s run its course and will soon become a parody of itself. Everyone else started making iThings and Apple couldn’t control it. People can’t add to the beginning of their products and Apple doesn’t have to deal with that kind of soundalike piggy backing anymore either. Lots of good reasons. Including looking at the wider ecosystem and seeing how companies, like Prodbendi, have gobbled up iNames ahead of Apple hoping for a pay day.
Hmmm I like the switch to Apple WATCH and Apple MUSIC but it doesn’t really work for me with Apple PAD
unfortunately a lot of people associate ‘i’ with apple — they have branded it ‘apple watch’ and use that name in the stores and adverts — apple cannot control other people… if people want to ‘nickname’ it “iwatch” then that’s their chose… you can’t sue each individual person for ‘misusing’ a word…
The lawsuit should be laughed out of the courts
They’re not suing people for misidentifying a product/misusing a word. They’re suing because Apple paid Google to show their content in response to searches for “iWatch.” They’ve redirected traffic away from the website of the One True Trademark Holder!
They’d have to prove Apple paid google for anything, but seeing as its a private contract, I’d like to know how they could prove it. BTW, companies do this all the time but don’t get sued.
Wich is legal. I can place an ad based on a search word containing “adobe” if i want, i’m only restricted in using the trademark in the ad or page itself.
Google won’t even accept complaints about that: https://support.google.com/adwordspolicy/answer/6118?hl=en
@steef I didn’t say it was illegal, simply clarifying what the lawsuit is about.
I for one see Apple renaming all of their current devices in the upcoming future. When the Apple Watch and Apple Pay were announced, neither of them have the “i” moniker in front of them; neither does Apple Music. I think the iPhone will be renamed into the Apple Phone. The iPad will become the Apple Tablet. MacBook will take on the name of Apple Notebook, with the MacBook Pro becoming the Apple Pro Notebook. Lastly the iMac will become the Apple Desktop, the Mac Pro will become the Apple Pro Desktop. I haven’t come up with an idea for the Mac Mini yet…
The Probendi website does actually state what iWatch is on their products page. It’s a mobile phone app that sends real-time audio, video and location data to another of their Critical Governance product.