APPLE AND SWATCH TANGLE OVER SLOGAN
having to defend itself against the
other’s accusations.
In 2015, Swatch trademarked
the sentence ‘One More Thing’
– a phrase that is arguably
associated with TV detective
Columbo but Apple fans may
recognise as being frequently said
by Steve Jobs in his keynotes. In
his speeches at Apple and tech-
related events, Jobs would discuss
the features of an upcoming
product release. Then, pretending
he was about to walk off stage
and finish, the late CEO would
turn back around and say: “But
there’s one more thing,” before
announcing new, special features.
The phrase was used in Apple
speeches up until early 2015, by
current Apple CEO Tim Cook,
when he unveiled Apple Music.
The last utterance of the phrase
from Apple was: “Before we close
this morning, we do have one
more thing… we do love music.”
Swatch’s trademark for the
sentence was applied for later
that year in May 2015 and is
held until November 27, 2024.
The trademark covers a wide
base of commercial areas,
including computer software
and digital recording media;
pretty much blocking Apple – or
anyone else – from using it on
any commercial platform.
While it is not entirely clear
why Swatch trademarked a saying
heavily associated with Apple and
appear not to have made use of it
since, many assume it was a not-
so-subtle dig at the tech company.
Swatch
denied
that
the
trademark had anything to do with
Apple, with a spokesperson for the
company telling TechRadar that
it was inspired by TV detective
Columbo who was also known
for using the common phrase.
The Swiss watchmaker’s claimed
it was planning to release a series
of watches based on film noir.
Apple later tried to block Swatch’s
trademark but was unsuccessful.
28 JEWELLERY FOCUS
It is worth noting that Apple
hadn’t used the phrase often in
its keynote speeches after Jobs’
passing, but it brought it back
when it announced its Apple
Watch – a device which had
marked yet another rift between
the two companies.
In 2014, just the year
before the ‘one more thing’
trademark, Apple’s chief designer
Jony Ive swore that the release of
Apple’s iWatch would destroy the
Swiss watch industry. Ive said:
“The Swiss watch industry is
in trouble.”
Switzerland-hailing
Swatch
did not take this lying down and
got its own back when Hayek
referred to Apple’s watch as an
“interesting toy” which “wouldn’t
last longer than 24 hours”.
Swatch later trademarked the
phrase that made a comeback
with the announcement of the
aforementioned watch.
The
‘One
More
Thing’
trademark was not in isolation,
as the application closely followed
another legal battle between the
two companies, which concerned
the name of the Apple iWatch.
In
2014,
Apple
had
trademarked the iWatch name in
preparation for the worldwide
release of the timepiece only for
Swatch to object to its trademark
application, stating that the name
was too similar to its own digital
wristwatch, the iSwatch, which
was released in 2013. However,
this was a trademark law so no
suing was involved, just legal
proceedings to block or allow
Apple to trade a product under
that name.
Two years later in September
2016, the UK Intellectual Property
Office upheld Swatch’s trademark
but by that time, Apple had already
decided to change the name of the
product to the Apple Watch when it
launched in 2015. This still means
that in the UK at least, Apple can
never release an iWatch.
While this complex back-and-
forth between Apple and Swatch
proves that the two companies are
rivals with a lot of history, they
are not alone in dragging each
other to court to settle a dispute.
‘‘
In 2014, just
the year
before the ‘one
more thing’
trademark,
Apple’s chief
designer Jony
Ive swore that
the release
of Apple’s
iWatch would
destroy the
Swiss watch
industry
‘‘
THE BIG BOYS
OTHER JEWELLERY LEGAL
AFFAIRS
Swatch has also had issues with
Tiffany & Co, when a collaboration
between the two failed. In 2007,
Swatch and Tiffany entered a
contract where Swatch would
design, produce and service watches
as Tiffany marketed and displayed
them. This signing would open
the two brands to new markets;
fine jewellery one for Swatch and
timepieces for Tiffany. However,
when unveiled at the 2009
Baselworld show, the collaborative
product seemed to be more Swatch
than Tiffany and the latter did not
feel it reflected their image.
Another watch was released
in 2010 which seemed to move
further away from the Tiffany
identity resulting in the eventual
collapse of the contract in 2011.
So, in 2013 Swatch decided to
sue Tiffany for $450m (£348m)
alleging Tiffany did not market
or display the watches; Tiffany
counter-sued for over $550m
(£425m) alleging that Swatch did
not produce the products agreed
on. Swatch’s complaint was
originally overruled but this year,
the company won its claim when
it appealed the decision.
June 2017 | jewelleryfocus.co.uk