Slashdot Mirror
Swatch Trademarks "One More Thing..."
AmiMoJo writes: It's the famous line Steve Jobs often used on stage to introduce unexpected Apple gadgets since 1999. Of course he wasn't the only one to utter it — TV detective Columbo was catching out criminals with the phrase way back in the 1970s and '80s too. Now Swiss watchmaker Swatch has acquired a trademark on the phrase "one more thing".
ref: Steve Jobs' grave.
not to be confused with frosty piss, the maker apologized that they did not have time to trademark both.
Nothing like abusing a commonly used phrase for gain instead of using innovation and good will.
Oh, One more thing.
This generally results in the failure of a company, people have great disdain for abuse.
One more thing.
Politicians usually lose offices after this too, so hopefully the cronies were already retiring.
One more thing!
Nah, too easy...
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
It's like they've never seen Jackie Chan Adventures.
"Apple"... twice... when they met, it was almost like matter/anti-matter...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I think I'm going to trademark "What the Fuck?"
I'll be rich!
I'm pretty sure that avoiding the use of "one more thing" won't be all that hard to do. There's always "but wait, there's more!"
I could not read the featured article because after I got a couple paragraphs down in the text, an automatically playing HTML5 video ad with sound that the site would not let me skip until after watching and listening to all 15 seconds of the 15-second ad caused me to reflexively press Ctrl+R. When the page reloaded, a full-window still ad appeared with a mailing list subscription nag on top of it.
Ctrl+W.
Anyone trying to use this extremely common words combination will have to pay royalties?
You seriously have absolutely no idea how trademarks work?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Trademarks, and Patent law are jobs programs for the legal field. Along the way there are some successes. Same goes for the complex tax law.
Usually, the trademark is constrained to a certain field... the idea is that Microsoft should be able to trademark Windows in reference to an OS, so that Bob down the street can't also sell an OS named Windows, but it would have no affect on Dave's 'Windows 4 Less' store that sells house windows.
Unfortunately, this doesn't always work out.
No. Other companies just can't use it as their tagline - sometimes even more restrictive than that - other companies in that field cannot use this as a tagline.
X
Anyone trying to use this extremely common words combination will have to pay royalties?
You seriously have absolutely no idea how trademarks work?
I do have a bit of a clue. I have a couple of trademarks.
I am surprised that a watch vendor got a trademark on a phrase used in promotional performances by another watch vendor. Maybe lawyers will be sharpening their quills.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
A trademark protects the owner in the subject area that the trademark is assigned to from competitors using the same phrase creating brand confusion. Swatch's trademark is for "SWATCH ONE MORE THING" in a bunch of areas basically jewelry/watches and electronics.
Other's can use the word/phrase still. Some infomercial could use it about all the wonderful stuff their new magical goo can do, as long as it wasn't for jewelry or an electronic device. Steve Jobs, were he alive today, could use the phrase as part of a presentation, as long as he wasn't using it as a catch phrase. It would just prohibit Apple from naming their next product "One more thing" or launching an ad campaign where that was the slogan, because both of those things could cause confusion to consumers.
There are no royalties for trademarks. Others are simply not allowed to use the trademark.
Oh, one more thing (obligatory):
I always thought Swatch was a contraction for Shitty watch.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
There are no royalties for trademarks. Others are simply not allowed to use the trademark.
so they have to take down all those old columbo reruns?
Jobs clearly made "one more thing" work for Apple. But that was for product announcements and it seemed to be an in-joke by a secretive company that couldn't keep its secrets very well.
Other than that, the expression seems to have more negative connotations than positive ones. It is the sort of thing that people say when they cannot stop talking, or when someone wants to emphasize a piece of bad news. It is the sort of thing that implies excess or redundancy. It is not the thing that many smart companies say unless they carefully engineer it to be an advantage.
You seriously have absolutely no idea how trademarks work?
Absolutely none. IANAL and am not interested by this trademarks/patents/industrial design crap. I just don't care. But I think it's disgusting that someone claims property on a phrase commonly used everywhere, from TV shows to tech presentations. Or even worse on a single word. Damn, isn't an English dictionary some form of "prior art"?!?
Anyone trying to use this extremely common words combination will have to pay royalties?
Nope.
This is way past ridiculous.
That's a symptom of your misunderstanding.
It's just like microsoft trying to trademark the word "Windows"...
That wasn't bad either. Nor was Palm, Oracle, Amazon, etc. The trick is to understand that the purpose of those laws is to prevent you from buying counterfeit goods. What's worse than buying a computer with Windows on it? Turning it on and finding out it won't even run Windows apps because their choice of OS has a Windows skin on it.
If you really did have a beef with Windows getting its trademark, the time to bring that up was long before Windows 95 came out and became a household brand.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Technically what they were finally successful in trademarking is "Microsoft Windows", but that doesn't stop them from sicking a pack of rabid lawyers on anyone using the word "Windows" for damn near anything.
I can see a marketing association with a phrase like that really going wrong.
Have gnu, will travel.
"Priot art" doesn't apply to trademarks.
Trademarks ONLY apply in the specific field of business you operate in, and are meaningless outside of that.
So you and I can continue to use "one more thing" and the people from Swatch can kiss our collective asses.
This should pretty much be limited to ... being used by a CEO at the end of a presentation in the introduction of a new product or feature, and specifically in the realm of watches and other lines of business which Swatch was engaged in as of the time they got the trademark.
They can't claim to own the English language. It doesn't work that way.
So, you in your, say, modern circus can still say things like ... "One more thing ... a monkey with 7 testicles".
And since Swatch isn't in the business of promoting monkeys and their testicles ... they can shut up.
I'm sure they'll try to expand this trademark to ridiculous levels, like all corporations do. But they really are restricted in what they can do.
At least for now. With enough corporate donations, they could change that.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Swatch: One more thing...
Apple: It just works...
Microsoft: Oh for christ sake again are you serious what the hell I just rebooted 20 minutes ago!
Good people go to bed earlier.
Meanwhile Nokia has submitted its application for "Good News Everybody!"
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
If you look at the registration, it tells exactly what areas it can't be used in (slightly reformatted for readability):
Anything not listed, or in a generic sense would be fair game (unless covered by someone else's trademark that is).
If you really did have a beef with Windows getting its trademark, the time to bring that up was long before Windows 95 came out and became a household brand.
Yes that was the time- and people did.
"windows" was an industry standard term to describe windowed interfaces. Microsoft successfully stole it and there was outrage in the technical community.
The OP used this event as a very effective example of a time when a generic term was inappropriately granted trademark status.
You attempted to rebut his excellent example by explaining why trademarks are useful which doesn't at all refute the OP's point.
At this point you might consider apologizing to the OP for the "symptom of your misunderstanding" comment as it is obvious which of you actually misunderstood..
Anyone trying to use this extremely common words combination will have to pay royalties? This is way past ridiculous. It's just like microsoft trying to trademark the word "Windows"...
No. Royalties are a patent and copyright thing. They have nothing to do with trademarks. And, no, it's not the case that anyone trying to use these words will be restricted. Only other people in lines of business that are sufficiently close to Swatch's that their use of the words might confuse people, might make people think that the other product was from Swatch.
So, if you make brightly-colored, trendy watches and try to use "One more thing" in your advertising, you may get slapped with lawsuit to force you to stop, and maybe pay damages.
If you make anything other than trendy watches, you're almost certainly fine to use the phrase.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Section 14 is far too broad and section 09 is insanely too broad. Trademark denied.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
one more thing
"specifically in the realm of watches and other lines of business which Swatch was engaged in as of the time they got the trademark."
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/bd/2b/20/bd2b2054beaf00e2834a9f59419f6161.jpg
"And, no, it's not the case that anyone trying to use these words will be restricted. Only other people in lines of business that are sufficiently close ..."
Tell that to Monster Cable and their trademark on "Monster"
Now Steve Job will never say it again.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
I'm pretty sure you have to use it in the context of a watch before they tear your balls off.
Yes that was the time- and people did.
"windows" was an industry standard term to describe windowed interfaces. Microsoft successfully stole it and there was outrage in the technical community.
Oh, bull. At best there was some mild griping about it in tech circles.
You attempted to rebut his excellent example by explaining why trademarks are useful which doesn't at all refute the OP's point.
Actually it did. Regardless of what was thought about it way back when, Microsoft owns that trademark now. Take it away from them and you create market confusion, which you don't actually want no matter how much you hate Microsoft.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Trademarks ONLY apply in the specific field of business you operate in, and are meaningless outside of that.
True, trademarks that aren't yet famous are limited to a field of use. But in the 1990s, the concept of trademark dilution broadened exclusive rights in famous trademarks to cover even unrelated use.
"Windows" was widely used in technical contexts long before MS trademarked it. Which is why they lost the trademark battle against "Lindows" in the US court. They won in a European court where English was not the native language, and then they bought the US rights (to "Lindows") from the Lindows company.
MS should not be allowed the rights to the term windows in any English speaking country. Defending against them, however, is likely to be both expensive and challenging. Because the legal system is rigged. But "window" is a generic term for a section of a computer screen operated on by some particular application, and has been so since long before MS claimed the term. The technical term is still in use, and they have no right to the term.
OTOH, there are so many languages in the world that coming up with something pronounceable and memorable that *won't* be in conflict is quite difficult. Which is why one company ended up calling itself "Exxon".
It's not a situation that has an easy answer that doesn't involve changing the law in a way that will disadvantage *someone*.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
If anyone has a trademark on that phrase it was Peter Falk as Lt. Columbo in the TV series of the same name!
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmw...
(To be fair, it's a trope about the topic, not the specific phrase, so it encompasses a number of similar phrases. But do a search of that page on that exact phrase, you'll find a number of hits, not only Columbo.)
Here's a hint about trademarks and how they apply.
One More Thing
Just Do It
I'm Lovin' It
Think Different
This post has not violated any trademark law, and I am not legally liable for any kind of trademark infringement. Trademark law does not mean that "anyone" saying or using a trademarked phrase owes royalties.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
I had a manager who would say "the thing is" or "that's the thing is" in every other sentence. I kept track once with a pile of screws, 70+ in under an hour.
"Apple" got permission to use the name for their computer company from Apple Corps, Ltd., which was the publisher of Beatles records.
Only after they promised to stay out of the music industry
Well, when you're appropriating a common phrase you do have make some effort to make that stand for your product. It's not enough to pick a phrase out of the air and claim it's yours. Nike did this with "Just Do It," and they obviously succeeded because most people who don't live under a rock would be able to identify Nike as the company that uses this trademark.
And if I understand how this works it doesn't mean other people, even corporations with competitive products, can't use that phrase. They just can't use that phrase in a way that is intended to create an association between that phrase and their product. So a different watch maker could say in it's ad, "One more thing you'll like about our Swiss automatic diver is never having to buy a battery again." That is if I understand this right.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
What? I'm pretty sure I read that this was already legalized last year before I... shit, my bad.
Requiem for the American Dream
At best there was some mild griping about it in tech circles.
To be fair, outrage in tech circles usually results in nothing but mild griping anyway. But the severity of the outrage is a matter of personal opinion. I remember quite a few people being very put out.
Actually it did.
*sigh* No. You rebutted an argument that you imagined. One that the OP didn't say:
He didn't say that trademarks aren't important.
He didn't say that Microsoft's trademark should now be revoked.
He didn't say that he dislikes Microsoft.
He simply said that at the time the trademark was issued it was for a generic term and shouldn't have been granted.
Regardless of what was thought about it way back when, Microsoft owns that trademark now.
No one is arguing that with you.
And also cock-swatch(tm)
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I've been saying that in print since the Internet was created (which is decades before we let you n00bZ use it).
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Yeah, that worked out for everybody...
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
...could not be reached for comment.
Trademark isn't copyright. Restriction on use is much narrower. This isn't going to pose a problem to anyone except maybe other watchmakers.
I am 98% sure that the show was from the early 2000's but I just don't care to verify.
It work out well for the company with the highest paid lawyers.
There are no royalties for trademarks.
Not strictly true, things are often manufactured "under license" also known as brand leasing, where the trademark owner allows someone else to use a trademark in return for royalties. This is particularly common in the world of beers, where popular overseas brands are often brewed under license". When I buy a can of an American beer in the UK, the chances are that it will have been nowhere near america and the small print on the can will say "brewed under license in the UK".
MS has registered trademarks on the word "Windows".
Because your life is not cluttered enough ...
Because you can't resist buying stupid shit
Because you need just One More Thing to clutter up your home
Swatch!
Things replaced by my smartphone: Land line, physical books, Game Boy, micro-cassette recorder, calculator, camera, walk-man, PDA, flash cards, timer, alarm clock, flash light, stupid keychain barcode cards, notepad, walkie-talkie, portable DVD player, and ...
One more thing... Swatch
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
With trademarks, don't you have to demonstrate prior usage? Like, if you've never used it, but your competitor has, as in this case, aren't you ineligible to register it? Or am I mistaken?