Swatch AG (Swatch SA) v Apple Inc (1320/2018)
Swatch AG (Swatch SA) v Apple Inc (1320/2018) [2021] ZASCA 11; 2021 (3) SA 507 (SCA); 2021 BIP 9 (SCA); [2021] HIPR 158 (SCA) (29 January 2021)
The court found that, upon visual, aural, and conceptual comparison, IWATCH and SWATCH are sufficiently distinct. The common element 'WATCH' is descriptive and does not confer exclusivity. The prefixes 'I' and 'S' provide clear differentiation, and the marks do not sound alike. The likely consumers of the products are discerning and brand-conscious, further reducing the risk of confusion. The existence of Apple's i-prefixed family of trade marks was noted but not decisive. The appeal was dismissed as Swatch failed to establish that the marks are confusingly or deceptively similar under the Tr…
Source excerpt
- Trade Marks
- Likelihood Of Confusion
- Descriptive Use Exception
- Visual Aural Conceptual Comparison