“Swatch Group AG, the world’s biggest watchmaker, said it has taken action against Apple Inc. (AAPL) over the most valuable technology company’s use of the iWatch label, which it says is too similar to its own iSwatch product,” Jan Schwalbe reports for Bloomberg.
“Swatch’s measures include pointing out the use of “iWatch” to authorities in all the countries where it has been registered as a trademark, Swatch Chief Executive Officer Nick Hayek said in a telephone interview yesterday. He didn’t say which countries had been contacted and when the measures started, adding there are no plans to take Apple to court,” Schwalbe reports. “‘This is the normal procedure to protect your own brand name,” Hayek said. “We react like this for all other brand names that we have protected.'”
“Cupertino, California-based Apple hasn’t yet disclosed any specifics for an Internet-connected wristwatch. Swatch Group, with headquarters in Biel, Switzerland, sells a digital-display model called iSwatch,” Schwalbe reports. “Apple may be looking to make inroads on that brand name because the two are too similar, Hayek said.”
MacDailyNews Take: Apple doesn’t need help from any brand in the world, much less Swatch, when it comes to branding. This Hayek joker sounds delusional – and quite nervous, as well he should be.
Schwalbe reports, “Swatch has registered the iSwatch name in several dozen countries and wants to protect it, according to Hayek.”
MacDailyNews Take: Gee, where’d Swatch get the “i” idea? What a mystery! By the way, the “iSwatch” trademark was filed on April 7, 2008 or 9 years, 7 months, and 24 days after Apple’s release of iMac.
Schwalbe reports, “Apple last year applied for trade mark protection for an “iWatch” in Japan, according to a June 3 filing with the Japan Patent Office. More than 50 companies have filed for trademark protection for the iWatch name, according to a search on the World Intellectual Property Organization website. Watson.ch reported ‘iWatch’ was granted protection on April 1 in Monaco, while authorities in Iceland issued a preliminary rejection, citing its similarity to iSwatch.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Swatch should enjoy the “world’s biggest watchmaker” sobriquet. No telling how long that’ll last. 😉
Swatch has a problem, take it up with Koh!
I think it’ll be called an iPod. iWatch, as has been suggested many times, may end up referring to the new ATV.
Swatch don’t just make Swatch watches, they own a whole load of other well-known, and not so well-known, but big selling watch brands.
There are tens of millions of people out there like me, who don’t want something on their wrist nagging them to pay attention to what their phone is doing.
I certainly cannot think of a single person in my wider circle of friends and aquaintancies, even those who use iPhones, (and many don’t), who have a use for an iWatch.
I’ve had three iPhones, waiting on the next, an iPad, a Mac Mini and a PowerBook, and I cannot see a need for such a device.
But I don’t need to be checking my damned phone every thirty seconds for fear I might miss a Facebook or Twitter post, or the latest funny cat meme.
“I cannot see a need for such a device.”
Kind of like real buttons on a smart phone, an email machine? It’s Apple, be surprised and amazed.
I respect that you obviously have no use for an “iWatch”. But I have occasions (teaching and other activities) where I really can’t check my phone when it vibrates, but need to. (I have an elderly parent I’m watching over and other commitments.)
If I could glance at my wrist to assess the importance level of a call, that feature alone would make an iWatch useful to me, and as Silverhawk1 points out, who knows what else Apple has in mind for the mythical iWatch?
The problem is you haven’t even seen or doesn’t even have any idea what iWatch looks like
I didn’t realize you were so narrowminded.
There are tens of millions of people out there like me, who don’t want something in their pocket nagging them to pay attention to it.
I certainly cannot think of a single person in my wider circle of friends and acquaintances, even those who use Macs, (and many don’t), who have a use for an iPhone.
I’ve had three iPods, a Mac Mini and a PowerBook, and I cannot see a need for such a device.
Plus, that is the most expensive phone in the world, and it doesn’t appeal to business customers because it doesn’t have a keyboard, which makes it not a very good e-mail machine.
AH-HA! Finally!. I always guessed you were a bitter old geezer crank, thanks for confirming it.
No one in your circle of friends with a use for an iPhone? Really? Are they all in hospice? Still yearning for a rotary dial, or maybe an operator to complete the circuit for you? LOL..
That nagging in our pocket keeps millions of us on track and happily productive thanks. I won’t even grace your absurd email argument with a rebuttal.
Actually I think he’s joking. Note that he ended with a Balmer quote.
since nobody really knows what this is or what it does for that matter, how do you know you don’t need one ? Its all hearsay now . And if I was swatch ( who hasn’t been hot in years) I would be worried about my business
Tell you what don’t buy one, it’s easier than trying to say cos I don t want one clearly nobody does. Of do you think this is a personal attack against you by Apple.
How iNgenious.
How long has iSwatch been around? Any time I see and i start a name I think Apple. iPhone, iPad, iMac, etc. Apple should go after them if they can for damages.
An i for an i – Apple should countersue!
Swatch will next sue Apple demanding removal of the “kill switch” because it sounds very similar to “kill Swatch”
What a great question “Gee, where’d Swatch get the “i” idea? What a mystery! By the way, the “iSwatch” trademark was filed on April 7, 2008 or 9 years, 7 months, and 24 days after Apple’s release of iMac.”
Let’s round that off to 10 years. Hmmm that would be 1998, that famous iMac. Now where did Apple get the “i” idea? Steve Jobs. Could be, but tack a couple of years prior to the iMac to some software that who’s purpose was “i seek you” or icq. The first version of that program was released in November 1996.
According to lore, Steve did not come up with the naming scheme. Ken Segall did ““One of the reasons we liked it was it was a good foundational name just in case we ever wanted another i-word,” Segall said.”
That’s one of the great reasons I love coming here. Thanks for your post. I followed up on that and came up with some nice items. This one I found particularly interesting.
http://www.cultofmac.com/20172/20172/
Thanks again izen.
sobriquet never seen that word in my life. thanks.
It’s not even in the Apple Dictionary! Go figure.
If Apple filed for the name “iFjweijlmoijiwg,” someone would object to it.
I object in advance!
“…while authorities in Iceland issued a preliminary rejection…”
I think they meant iCeland.
The laws on trademarks are ridiculously broad. The University of Texas controls the word “Longhorn” and visual representations of the Main Building on the UT campus. I understand that high school teams in Texas are forbidden to call themselves “Ducks” without licensing the name from the University of Oregon. Obviously, both ducks and longhorn cattle far antedate the universities.
Given that state of the law, Swatch has just as much right to register and enforce a trademark as Apple does.
Alternatives:
iHorologe <–My favorite 😉 not
iChronometer
iChronoscope
iChron <–Hmm!
iClock
iTime
iHourglass
iTick
iTock
iTimepiece
You mean for Swatch?
Good idea.
You forgot iCaramba!
I’m sure I’ll love it when/if Apple releases it, but all this speculation of said product has me calling it the ayWatch. Clouds with no rain.
😀 ! ! !
I’m still going for iWear cause a device that small could be worn at several place and should be able to go through the wash.
A brooch, a tiara, a bow tie, a garter, a shoe…
I advocated this piece out for some time but had not thought of the wash angle, you are more perceptive than me
This just in: a class action lawsuit was just lodged against Apple. It seems that a large number of people have been using the term “I” to refer to themselves for years.
A soap and body lotion manufacturer has lately created a complete line of products named “iAm”… Who’s going to throw an action after them?
God should be suing them. “I AM” was his shortly after creation.
(Not here to start a debate on religion – laugh at it and move on.)
Some dog food company(s)
Sorry guys but this is hypocrisy to its finest, especially from MDN (And from most posters here).
Swatch group is not a small enterprise, it’s one of the biggest watch makers in the world owning many brands (also luxury brands). Swatch is not a little unknown company that “bought” a patent to litigate and get money. It’s Apple who wants to play in Swatch’s playground
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatch_Group
As Apple fans I thought you would be especially sensible to IP and trademark protection but it looks like you’re not even able to show the slightest honesty when it comes to your religion.
I don’t say Apple copied “on purpose” another brand… But in the end the result is the same and it’s perfectly OK that Swatch protects its own brands and YES… Apple has to respect others IP too.
I do agree any company should protect its trademark name for its brand or model. What many of the comments is that in the recent slew of rewarding for stealing, it is ironic that this would be an issue especially with Swatch. I do agree that Swatch did not add the “i” in front of its name out of coincidence or brainstorming. They are riding the iWave that Apple created.
Not to mention that there will be only the most minimal of similarities in the products. I doubt the iSwatch is anything more than a standard LCD digital time piece. I doubt the iWatch will look at all like it, cost anything in the same ballpark, or be used in (just) the same way. Now, if the iSwatch were a part of Google Gear, they might have an argument.
@ Mr Tuttle: I think you’re right with the fact Swatch probably rides the iWhatever wave. This is the way industry works. Apple also tries to “jump on the train” of some trends (In this case wearable device). Both are right to do so.
@ SJBMusic: In this case Swatch doesn’t defend a technology but a Brand. Even if they were selling frying pans it’s still their right to defend the trademark they registered.
I just want to add that I appreciate that you both answered in a perfectly decent way. This is far from always the case here.
This is far *AWAY from *BEING always the case here
An edit button would really be appreciated 😉
Oh please! Stop with the condescending lecturing. You don’t think we know who Swatch is? Your calling people hypocrites for pointing out the irony of a company that mimics Apple “iBrand” theme complaining that Apple’s iName sounds too much like their iName? And this is from a company that simply threw the letter “S” in front of the generic noun to create their brand. Seriously, any name with the word “watch” will sound too similar to “Swatch”, by their standards.
It’s a moot issue anyway. Apple will not brand their wearable “iWatch”. That’s a red herring.
Really???
You think everybody here knows who Swatch is? I think you haven’t read other posts in this thread. These posts clearly show many people don’t have a clue what kind of brand Swatch is.
I also find it rather ironical that your critics go toward a company that adds a letter in front of a common name to create a brand (In this case “S”watch). Isn’t it exactly what Apple did with its “i”Whatever? Doesn’t Apple defend its own iBranding???
You’re just the sad proof of the schizophrenic behavior many people have on this website. Thank you for proving my point.
BTW… If Apple decides not tu use the iWatch brand then there is no problem
Swatch is prolly just trying to grab a few bucks before their entire industry evaporates, and whose ashes will be purchased by M$ with their last fifteen dollars in an effort to entire the market late.
(Sorry, enter)
entire works too…
Apple trademarks:
iBeacon™
iBook®
iBooks®
iCal®
iChat®
iDVD®
iFrame Logo™
iLife®
iMac®
iMessage®
iMovie®
iPad®
iPad Air™
iPad mini™
iPhone®
iPhoto®
iPod®
iPod classic®
iPod Hi-Fi®
iPod nano®
iPod shuffle®
iPod Socks®
iPod touch®
iSight®
iTunes®
iTunes Logo®
iTunes Pass®
iTunes U®
iWeb™
iWork®
Don’t forget Apple also had trademark problems with Macintosh, iPhone, and . . . Apple.