Apple Inc v Swatch AG

Apple Inc v Swatch AG

The Hearing Officer erred in finding a high or medium degree of similarity between smart watches and watches, as the overlap in functionality is incidental and does not justify such similarity; the correct assessment is a low degree of similarity, which undermines the likelihood of confusion and requires the appeal to be allowed.

Parties
Appellant: Apple Inc; Respondent: Swatch AG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Trade Marks, Likelihood of Confusion, Similarity of Goods, Distinctiveness
Intellectual Property Trade Marks Likelihood of Confusion Similarity of Goods Distinctiveness

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Apple Inc

Appellant

Swatch AG

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Hearing Officer erred in assessing the similarity of goods between smart watches and watches
  2. 2 Whether the Hearing Officer erred in assessing the similarity of the marks IWATCH and SWATCH
  3. 3 Whether the likelihood of confusion was properly determined

Ratio Decidendi

The Hearing Officer erred in finding a high or medium degree of similarity between smart watches and watches, as the overlap in functionality is incidental and does not justify such similarity; the correct assessment is a low degree of similarity, which undermines the likelihood of confusion and requires the appeal to be allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The opposition is dismissed for the goods in question
  • The application for registration may proceed for the specified goods