The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) has upheld Swatch
AG’s opposition to registering the trademark
“iWatch” by Apple Inc in the UK.
In 2014, Apple filed a trademark application in the UK for
"iWatch" which covered computer software, security
devices, monitors and monitoring devices, cameras, computers,
computer hardware, computer peripherals, wireless communication
devices, radios, audio and video devices, global positioning system
devices, accessories, parts, components, and cases for the
Swatch had previously registered several marks under the names
"iSwatch" and "Swatch". It contended that
Apple's application for the "iWatch" trademark was
identical, or very similar, to the goods and services covered by
the marks it had already registered. Swatch argued that the Apple
mark would be likely to cause confusion amongst the public. In
addition, Swatch indicated the use of the mark would benefit from
the reputation that Swatch already holds with regard to the
production of horological and chronomatic equipment.
Apple suggested that the trademark should not be opposed on the
basis that people associate Apple products with having the prefix
"i". The fact that they had "a family of 23"
previously registered marks of that nature was, in their view, a
way in which the public associated products as ones made by Apple
and therefore would not be confused with Swatch's marks.
Swatch's opposition was successful for all the goods apart
from computer software, security devices, computer peripherals,
parts, components, and cases for the goods. For these, they failed
to demonstrate to the IPO that they were so similar or identical
that confusion would be caused amongst consumers.
In a relatively short space of time, Apple has developed an
impressive catalogue of "i" products. But a notable
omission from that catalogue is their smart watch in relation to
which Apple has had to settle for the "Apple Watch"
It would appear that Swatch have successfully managed to stop
the pursuit of all "i" marks.
This case is not quite a victory for David over Goliath (Swatch
is a global brand founded in 1983 with a turnover in excess of 8
billion Swiss francs), but it does show that a business (no matter
how big and powerful) cannot acquire rights where prior rights rest
It also demonstrates that when considering a branding strategy,
thought must be given to existing rights held by others – and
if there are, how this might be resolved, for example, by
The material contained in this article is of the nature of
general comment only and does not give advice on any particular
matter. Recipients should not act on the basis of the information
in this e-update without taking appropriate professional advice
upon their own particular circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The focus on the product being obvious or anticipated as at a certain date provides powerful protection and commercial certainty without conflicting with a patentee's ability to obtain patent protection.
The High Court considered a claim by Azumi, the owner of high-end Japanese restaurant Zuma against Zuma's Choice Pet Products Limited (ZCPP) and its director Zoe Vanderbilt for trade mark infringement.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).