Swatch allowed to 'Tick Different'

US tech giant Apple has failed to stop Swiss watch giant Swatch from registering "Tick Different" as a trademark, which Apple had argued segues too closely to its own "Think Different" trademark.

In decision grounds issued on Aug 14, principal assistant registrar of the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (Ipos) See Tho Sok Yee found that when compared as wholes, the marks were more dissimilar than similar.

Noting that the two marks were unlikely to cause confusion among consumers, she added: "I struggle to see how there is any benefit to be had from riding on Apple's goodwill and reputation and from any favourable association with Apple of the 'Think Different' mark."

Apple's "Think Different" mark was used in its successful Emmy-award winning advertising campaign which ran for five years from 1997, and helped boost the Apple brand. The mark was also used on the box packaging for its iMac computers sold here next to another trademark "Macintosh".

Swatch's "Tick Different" mark, which has not been used, referenced its longstanding association with timepieces. Swatch has a worldwide presence and its corporate group owns a stable of Swiss watch brands, including Omega, Tissot and Swatch.

Its applications to register "Tick Different" were filed in Singapore in 2015 for use in relation to items like electronic payment processing as well as goods made of precious metals, among other items.

Apple, represented by lawyer Amanda Lim, in opposing the registration, argued that the two marks were highly similar due to the same syllabic structure and number of words. With the same ending and almost the same beginning, they are visually and aurally similar, she added.Apple said its goods have been sold in Singapore since 2009 with the trademark to underline its claim that the mark is well known in Singapore.

Swatch, defended by lawyer Denise Loh, countered that the visual, aural and conceptual differences between "Tick" and "Think" made the marks more dissimilar than similar.

In dismissing Apple's challenge after considering all the pleadings, evidence and submissions, Ms See said because of the conceptual, visual and aural dissimilarities of the marks, she was persuaded that the average consumer would conclude they are, overall, more dissimilar than similar.

She ruled that as Apple's opposition failed on all grounds, the two trademark applications from Swatch will proceed to registration.