Swiss Launch of Apple Watch Hit By Patent Issue

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.

Comments

Patent?

[ArcadeMan]

The article doesn't give any details about what the word apple or an apple logo has to do with a patent. A trademark I could understand, but a patent?

Re: Patent?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Patent?

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

Re:Patent?

[phayes]

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

It's a trademark

[Paul Bristow]

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.

Trademark, not patent

[tele]

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).

Re:I guess all the Swiss watchmakers

[TWX]

Swiss watchmakers don't compete with Apple. Those that want a Swiss watch aren't looking for an electronic watch. That ship sailed decades ago with the introduction of the quartz-timed watch, and Japan and now China provides those to the world.

The Swiss still make mostly mechanical watches with loads of beautifully machined small moving parts. Those that want that kind of watch probably aren't even considering an electronic watch.

RTS: It's a *trademark*

[DrYak]

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?

The summary and the Reuters article are *wrong*. It's not a patent, it's a trademark. Here's the original RTS' report (in french).
Here's an announcement from Steiger Legal (in Standard German) that indeed Reuters translated it wrong and then everybody sheepishly repeated it every where.

In 1985, the watch maker "Leonard Timepieces" registered the usage of an apple and the word "Apple" in the domain of timepieces (probably thinking about a "Wilhelm Tell"-themed timepiece design at some point in time).
This trademark was registered on 5 december 1985. The next trade mark periodic renewal (once every 10 years) is on 5 december this year (at which point, if Leonard Timepieces indeed choose to renew it, it will remain valid until 2025).

Now given the Swiss legal system, Apple aren't automatically forbidden to sell their watches in Switzerland. Leonard *could* file a complain (if they think that there's a reasonable risk that Apple is trying to earn money by exploiting consumer confusion and trying to abuse Leonard's brand recognition of *their* apple watch), in which case Apple *could* be barred from selling the watch. But now, there's nothing automatic.