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".
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.
I think I'm going to trademark "What the Fuck?"
I'll be rich!
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.
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.
"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.
"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"
If anyone has a trademark on that phrase it was Peter Falk as Lt. Columbo in the TV series of the same name!
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.
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! --