Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Cisco Sues Apple Over iPhone Trademark

Posted by samzenpus on Wed Jan 10, 2007 08:28 PM
from the that-didn't-take-long dept.
Businesses Government The Courts Apple News
lucabrasi999 writes "It appears that Apple may be running out of items that they can prefix with the letter "i". Cisco is suing Apple over trademark infringement. Cisco claims to own the rights to the "iPhone" trademark since they purchased Infogear in 2000. Infogear filed for the rights to the trademark in 1996."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Cisco VP Explains Lawsuit Against Apple 303 comments
Dekortage writes "The day after Apple announced its iPhone, Cisco sued over the name. Mark Chandler, Cisco's SVP and General Counsel, has posted an explanation of the suit on his blog: 'For the last few weeks, we have been in serious discussions with Apple over how the two companies could work together and share the iPhone trademark. ...I was surprised and disappointed when Apple decided to go ahead and announce their new product with our trademarked name without reaching an agreement. It was essentially the equivalent of "we're too busy."' What did Cisco want? '[We] wanted an open approach. We hoped our products could interoperate in the future.'" Another reader wrote to mention that already, Cisco's trademark might be in trouble in Europe.
[+] Hardware: iPhone Lawsuit Put On Hold For The Moment 72 comments
SoulReaverDan writes "The recent lawsuit between Cisco and Apple on the iPhone trademark has taken an interesting turn. Cisco and Apple have agreed to a temporary truce, to allow Apple time to respond to the lawsuit (and, one assumes, avoid more legal fees). The article goes on to mention Apple's claim that several companies are using the iPhone name, which dovetails nicely with a great blog entry over on ZDNet. Alan Graham lays out a search of various websites, showing that not only is Cisco not the only one using the iPhone name, they're trying to use it just a little too hard. The image of the CIT300 (note this is NOT the CIT400 that Cisco is suing Apple for at all) on Amazon has the iPhone logo, but it lacks the logo on the Linksys website or on CDW's website."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Cisco Sues Apple Over iPhone Trademark 25 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Trademark info (Score:5, Informative)

    by traindirector (1001483) * on Wednesday January 10 2007, @08:29PM (#17549248)

    The trademark information on the US Patent and Trademark Office's site [uspto.gov]

    I've been curious about this one since yesterday. Apple doesn't seem to have any legal right to the name, but could they really call it anything else?

  • Don't Worry, It's OK (Score:5, Funny)

    by abscissa (136568) on Wednesday January 10 2007, @08:32PM (#17549294)
    Better to call it "iPhone" and get your ass sued than call it "Zune" and paint it brown and squirt it everywhere.

  • obligatory (Score:5, Funny)

    by User 956 (568564) on Wednesday January 10 2007, @08:32PM (#17549302) Homepage
    Cisco is suing Apple over trademark infringement.

    iPhowned!

  • Cisco was willing to negotiate (Score:5, Interesting)

    by alain94040 (785132) on Wednesday January 10 2007, @08:34PM (#17549342) Homepage
    From Cisco's web site yesterday: "SAN JOSE Calif., January 9, 2007 - Given Apple's numerous requests for permission to use Cisco's iPhone trademark over the past several years and our extensive discussions with them recently, it is our belief that with their announcement today, Apple intends to agree to the final document and public statement that were distributed to them last night and that addressed a few remaining items. We expect to receive a signed agreement today."

    I guess someone at Apple didn't sign on the dotted line last night. What could Cisco possibly be asking for that Apple would refuse?

    Alain.

  • Trademark abandonment (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Maniakes (216039) on Wednesday January 10 2007, @08:40PM (#17549422) Journal
    You can lose a trademark through dilution if you let it become generic, but what about if you don't use the trademark at all? Even before Apple's announcement, I expect almost anyone hearing the word "iPhone" would associate it much more strongly with Apple than with Cisco.

  • It's OK (Score:5, Insightful)

    by treeves (963993) on Wednesday January 10 2007, @08:51PM (#17549604) Homepage Journal
    They'll change the name, and everybody will still call it the iPhone and know it refers to Apple's phone whenever you hear iPhone, not Cisco. Mission accomplished.

  • why you don't publicly name your product... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SuperBanana (662181) on Wednesday January 10 2007, @09:08PM (#17549810)
    ...until AFTER you sign the deal taking the name, not BEFORE.

    When Apple announced it as the "iPhone", their bargaining position weakened considerably; they haven't quite committed to the name (Apple COULD use a different name), but doing so put Cisco in a stronger position. Which, of course, Cisco realized- you'll note the day of the conference, Cisco was saying that they had faxed over stuff and were waiting for Apple to return the docs. I bet- the agreement probably said "all your cash are belong to us."

    Even if Apple calls it the QRTB-3000, everyone ELSE will continue to refer to it as the iPhone. Apple may be hoping legions of rabid fans will side with them and Cisco will back down from a PR standpoint. Which I hope to hell never happens, because Apple fucked up on this big time. Apple may try to argue that despite Cisco having the trademark, they haven't used it in the ten years they've had it- and Cisco hasn't quashed everyone running around for the last year talking about how Apple would come out with an "iPhone."

    Cisco can hardly argue damages; they have no "iPhone" product from which Apple is causing confusion.

    One thing is for sure- this is going to keep Groklaw busy for the next few months.

    • Re:why you don't publicly name your product... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kfg (145172) on Wednesday January 10 2007, @09:29PM (#17550090)
      Cisco actually played their trump card on Dec. 18th when they released the iPhone under their Linksys brand; despite the fact that they were actively negotiating with Apple over the use of the mark.

      Personally; I hope the judge hands down the ruling "You've both been acting like complete dickheads."

      KFG

    • Re:Duh (Score:5, Interesting)

      by nels_tomlinson (106413) on Wednesday January 10 2007, @08:46PM (#17549530) Homepage
      I was surprised when I read that Apple was having discussions with Cisco on the name.

      Why would that surprise you? However silly we might think trademark law, Cisco owns that trademark under the current law. If Apple wants to use it, they'll have to make a deal with Cisco. Or did you mean that you were surprised that they were still talking so late in the game?

      Trusting Cisco over something like this and they screw Apple over?

      I don't see that they trusted Cisco. It looks to me as if Apple very cynically decided that rather than come to an agreement, they'd try to screw Cisco in court. Apple has been nasty before, but this is worse behavior than I expected.

      It's not like they had no other choices for the name. Trademark law still allows companies to name products without affixing an ``i'', though few companies are taking advantage of that legal lattitude. Even really stupid names like `Zune'' and ``Wee-wee'' don't seem to hinder sales, so I really don't see any reason for Apple to try to cheat Cisco on this silly name.

      • Re:Duh (Score:5, Insightful)

        by localman (111171) on Wednesday January 10 2007, @09:11PM (#17549844) Homepage
        However silly we might think trademark law

        I think current patent and copyright law is silly, but trademarks are a bit different, IMO. I believe it is really is important for consumers to be able to tell that they're buying from one company as opposed to another. Quality control and service are meaningless if others can easily impersonate or cause confusion as to who you're really dealing with. Trademarks do a good job at handling this.

        It may be that things have gotten out of hand with the interpretation, that is, courts being too sensitive to what creates "customer confusion". Also it was easier when trademarks were more local in scope, but the internet has kind of blown that. Still, I think trademark law is a greater good than evil even today.

        (and this coming from someone who was cease-and-desisted by Mattel a few years back)

        Cheers.

    • Re:what about these guys? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Dynedain (141758) <slashdot2@nOsPAm.anthonymclin.com> on Wednesday January 10 2007, @08:47PM (#17549550) Homepage
      The sad thing is that Apple was the reason why everyone started adding i to everything...


      So a trademark aquired in 1996 is because Apple decided to trademark the iMac in 1998? That's some interesting time traveling device that Jobs & Co. has. Where can I get an iTimeMachine?

      But seriously, the dot com boom and rise of general internet awareness sparked a lot of i-names. e-names were more popular initially, but when people couldn't register e-device, the next thing they'd try was i-device. While Apple's uses may be the most memorable (because of success and their incredible ability to get free marketing from every news source on the planet), it wasn't the first and wasn't the trend setter either.

      *** File this myth along side of Apple being the first to have USB or 64bit desktop machines.

    • Re:what about these guys? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by puto (533470) * <theflatline@yahoo.com> on Wednesday January 10 2007, @08:49PM (#17549588) Homepage
      Actually no,

      I worked for a Chatroom software company that owned a product called ichat. Apple bought the trademark and the name, so they did not come up with it.

      http://forums.appleinsider.com/archive/index.php/t -8722.html

      Even discussed on appleforums.

      The company changed its name to globalchat. Which was then bought by digi-net.com who owns digichat. Ichat was sold as rooms.

      Ichat was WAAAAAAAAAAAAY before apple I'ed anything. 1996

      http://web.archive.org/web/19961106085604/http://w ww.ichat.com/

      The ichat site at apple used to explain this with a link, but have since used the distortion field to take it down.

      If I were jobs, I would come up with a different name.

      Puto

      • Re:what about these guys? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by powerlord (28156) on Wednesday January 10 2007, @08:48PM (#17549564) Journal
        Actually, there was a whole dot-com phenomena of putting "i" in front of things too.


        Yes ... which is where we got the iMac, iPod and iTunes. I wonder if Apple can make the case that people already associate the "i*" with THEM, either the 'iPhones' TradeMark should be considered diluted, or it should be assigned to them.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.