Swatch, apparently threatened by Apple’s recent forays into watchmaking, has taken another legal step seemingly aimed at tweaking Cupertino: registration of two “One More Thing” trademarks, a catch phrase famously associated with former Apple CEO Steve Jobs’ keynote speeches.
Discovered this week by Wirtschaft and noted by Patently Apple, the trademarks “One More Thing” (1261461) and “Swatch One More Thing” (1261460) appear to have been filed for in November of 2014, published in Switzerland this May, and registered across 44 countries yesterday. Swatch has trademarked the phrases for categories that include media players, telecommunications devices, computers, and timepieces, which could prevent Apple from using “One More Thing” when introducing and marketing future products overseas. An opposition to the trademarks is apparently pending.
Legal issues between Apple and Swatch have been on a low boil for years. Swatch has trademarked and sold the “iSwatch,” which apparently prevented Apple from using “iWatch” as the name for the Apple Watch, and holds exclusive rights to use Liquidmetal in watches, a narrow carve-out impacting Apple’s planned use of the material in its products. On the technology side, Swatch has attempted to diversify its watch lineup with more advanced technologies, introducing the niche Swatch Touch Zero One as a touchscreen watch for beach volleyball players. It’s unclear whether Swatch’s latest move is designed to put pressure on Apple to negotiate a broad licensing deal, or the act of a competitor determined to restrict a new rival’s growth.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
That’s quite pathetic from Swatch. What are they ‘trying to prove’? Being funny? Hip? And what is the iSwatch name supposed to ‘mean’? Is it connected to the Internet 24/7?
My thoughts exactly! Using the little “i” is a bit dated. Not sure why they feel they have to compete with Apple and take shots at them. They make classic watches. Now all this does is make them look desperate and pathetic….keep it classy Swatch.
You mean, like the iPod was connected to the interwebs 24/7/365?
I’m sorry but I find it highly skeptical that Apple didn’t call their watch iWatch because of trademark issues. iWatch is a stupid and creepy sounding name. iPhoto is now just Photos. Their music service is called Apple Music, not iMusic. And their news app is Apple News not iNews. The whole i moniker is tired and played out.
Yep, worked well in the .com boom, but with kids as young as 2yo using electronic devices, it’s well past its prime. Glad Apple is moving away from it. The lone remaining iDevices are the iPad and iPhone, and they just won’t change those because of the marketing/brand recognition associated with those names. Though I’d like nothing more then for them to change it to the Apple Phone.
Agreed. I’d like them to rebrand the iMac to just the Mac. So we’d have the MacBook, MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, Mac and Mac Pro.
Yep, the MacBook Air will eventually disappear so we’d have the MacBook/Pro, and Mac/Pro/Mini (with the first having the build in screen and the latter two being the high/low end without screens).
Unfortunately, the trademark issue are exactly why it wasn’t named iWatch. That being said, it was a blessing in disguise because it forced Apple to think of a new naming scheme. It ends up working out better because it’s not placing the creator (Apple) and manufacturer (Apple) to the forefront of the product names (Apple Watch, Apple Music). The iName methodology had run its course so I welcome the Apple-centric naming at this point.
Feel skeptical if you want. But existing trademarks for the iSwatch and iWatch were the reason. See http://9to5mac.com/2014/05/03/swiss-based-watchmaker-swatch-anticipating-apples-market-entry-by-fighting-for-iwatch-trademark/ and http://9to5mac.com/2015/07/15/european-lawsuit-apple-watch-iwatch-trademark/
Doesn’t mean they were the reason, just that it was a possible factor.
Apple has paid for the rights to use iNames in the past, but I think they just thought it was time for something new.
Cook referred to it as iWatch during a TV interview shortly after the official announcement was made. iWatch was the preferred name, much like “iTV” was the preferred name for Apple TV (and was publicized as such, on stage) but ultimately couldn’t be secured due to trademark issues. As the subsequent releases of iPad, iCloud, etc. show, Apple’s execs didn’t choose Apple TV because it was time for something new — they chose it because their first choice wasn’t available.
To be fair, News is a bad example. iNews is an existing product. It’s made by Avid.
Lot’s of companies have tried to ‘tweak Cupertino’ and failed.
Another company with no good personality what-so-ever. I would never even think of doing something this horrible.
If this were Apple doing this there would screams of unfair competitive advantage. There would be calls for anti-trust investigations, restraint of trade allegations. But Swatch is doing it so no problem.
This is just the first step in Swatch’s master plan for the absolute domination of the beach volleyball related device world. What’s next, crew rowing? Well played Swatch, well played indeed.
As far as the trademark goes, I think it will affect Xiaomi more than it will affect Apple. On the other hand, Xiaomi has not shown a lot of regard for trademarks so, no harm done.
It seems a bit silly and desperate to me. Nevertheless, it doesn’t affect my plans to never buy a Swatch watch.
AHoles!
Who cares. Those bozos at Snatch could try to trademark Cokes “The Real Thing” and it still wouldn’t help them.
So they trademark a know “Steve-ism”
Good luck with that. I would like to see them sue Apple the next time they use it (maybe 9/9)… Then Apple can go to court and get it thrown out with Prior Art, and show a reel of past Steve Jobs product launches.
Boom
I’m surprised they even did let them to patent it.
Wait…Swatch is still a thing?!?
Swatch pathetic strategy. With that mindset, it would not surprise me they finished as Nokia, Motorola or Blackberrie.
They will be around for quite a while, as they own eta , plus a ton of luxury brands.
Apple should just keep using the phrase anyway. Screw Swatch!
Surely Columbo deserves credit for this phrase.
You know a company’s tanking when they try to remain relevant with a total dick move.
Apple haven’t ever used it in marketing campaigns, have they? just onstage at Apple launch events. I don’t think you could prevent someone using a common everyday phrase in that context, (especially when you’re the company that popularised it.)
I think they would just ignore this. I’d be surprised if any court would uphold the trademark if it came to that.