Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Swiss Launch of Apple Watch Hit By Patent Issue

Posted by timothy on from the called-dibs-too-late dept.

wabrandsma points out this Reuters story, according to which: Apple is not able to launch its new smartwatch in Switzerland until at least the end of this year because of an intellectual property rights issue, Swiss broadcaster RTS reported on its website. The U.S. tech giant cannot use the image of an apple nor the word 'apple' to launch its watch within Switzerland, the home of luxury watches, because of a patent from 1985, RTS reported, citing a document from the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property.

6 of 111 comments (clear)

  1. It's a trademark by Paul+Bristow · · Score: 5, Informative

    Looking at the RTS article (in French) it's clearly a trademark issue, not a patent.

    Normally patents expire 20 years after filing, so Reuters should have smelled a rat.

    --
    - Paul
  2. Trademark, not patent by tele · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's a trademark issue about the name, not a patent issue. See http://www.steigerlegal.ch/2015/04/04/falschmeldung-apple-watch-und-das-schweizer-patent/ (in german) for a picture of the trademarked logo (and run the page through Google Translate for the details).

  3. Re: Patent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    The language is called English, we invented it, you ruined it.

  4. Re:Patent? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

    They must have different rules there.

    In Switzerland, patents expire in 20 years. Trademarks don't expire, but must be periodically renewed. So why is a patent from 1985 still valid? How can a patent cover logos and brands, which are covered by trademarks? TFA doesn't have much information, and what it does have doesn't make sense. The most plausible explanation is that the journalist is simply incompetent.

    This article states that it is a trademark, not a patent, and that the trademark has a 30 year duration, and it is expiring soon. It doesn't explain why the trademark is expiring.

  5. Re:Patent? by phayes · · Score: 4, Informative

    Non-use of the _trademark_ for a commercial product puts the trademark,up for grabs after 30 years. This is what is happening here.

    --
    Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
  6. Re:Patent? by cheesybagel · · Score: 3, Informative

    Trademarks usually apply to a given spectrum of products. I would guess what happened to Apple Inc here is the same thing that happened against Apple Records. Originally there was no clash because the segments were different (computers vs music) but now that there is an overlap there's an issue.

    I would guess the guy has a trademark for using apple logos on watches or something like that.