Slashdot Log In
Cisco Sues Apple Over iPhone Trademark
Posted by
samzenpus
on Wed Jan 10, 2007 07:28 PM
from the that-didn't-take-long dept.
from the that-didn't-take-long dept.
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."
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This discussion has been archived.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.
Trademark info (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Re:Trademark info (Score:5, Funny)
Don't think so (Score:5, Funny)
Hello? iMobile (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hello? iMobile (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Don't think so (Score:5, Funny)
How about this: (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Trademark info (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps the GP confused the UK case with the german gmail case. In Germany, the name G-mail and the domain gmail.de was already taken when Google launched Gmail. Google not only didn't get the domain gmail.de, they even aren't allowed to use the Gmail trademark in Germany. Instead, they use googlemail.com (but not googlemail.de, despite owning the domain).
Re:Trademark info (Score:5, Funny)
Good Idea. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good Idea. (Score:5, Funny)
Bravo for a honestly funny post.
Re:Good Idea. (Score:5, Funny)
And yes, due to a lack of Google at the time, that song confused the hell out of me for years. Guess I'm just not "down" with the culture that's brought us such other gems as "bling"
Re:Trademark info (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Trademark info (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Trademark info (Score:5, Funny)
iPod Phone, Phone iPod, Apple Phone, Granny Smith, Red Delicious...
Re:Trademark info (Score:4, Funny)
i think that it would be a fair name. it runs OS X, so it's almost a Mac already.
Maybe they could call it something based on the name Newton.
NewtonPhone?
iNewton?
iPhoNewton?
Umm...i think they should just call it the MacPhone.
Re:Trademark info (Score:5, Funny)
This is what I would do. If they think this is on par with the Macintosh, go with another apple. Good names include Cortland, Pippin, Fugi, Lodi, Ginger Gold, Braeburn, and of course, Ms. Boyd's Special.
Re:Trademark info (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Trademark info (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Trademark info (Score:5, Informative)
Two points:
1. Negotiations are probably still ongoing. Cisco is releasing this announcement in hopes of putting pressure on Apple to settle for their terms.
2. Apple may be hoping to wrestle the trademark away if necessary. Marks are really only valid if you use them. (Insert long list of "gotchas" here.) Given that "iPhone" (whatever it was) appears to be a dead product, Cisco's claim to the mark may not be as strong as Apple's. Alternatively, they may feel they can convince a judge that the two products are in different markets and thus the "Apple iPhone" is a different brand than the "Infogear iPhone". Either way, I don't think Cisco's position is as strong as they're making it out to be.
Re:Trademark info (Score:5, Informative)
It's actually not a half bad sounding little gadget, either.
Re:Trademark info (Score:5, Insightful)
I think Linksys introduced their iPhone to counteract an expected argument that the trademark was not in use. As I remember, it was a hasty rebranding of an already existing product line. It would be hard to argue that the name was well-established commercially.
I can't help but notice that the Apple iPhone itself has no visible marks on it, other than the Apple logo on the back. They could change the name from iPhone to jPhone or kPhone in seconds flat.
One thing for sure: The value of Linksys' trademark is virtually zero today. Whenever anyone says "iphone", Apple will be the reason why. And the beauty of that rather curious argument is that the public did it by so relentlessly using the name before launch. Apple itself didn't do a thing to destroy the trademark before launch day.
Apple may rename the product, if Linksys is asking for too much, but I'll bet that years from now people will still be talking about iPhone, even as they use their pMacs or MacPhones.
Trademarks are funny that way.
Finally, will this curious little squabble have any impact? I'm curious since I don't think the amount of money this dispute could yield would be worth the executive time it takes and the odd publicity brought to both companies.
Unless the publicity was the idea? It seems like this has single-handedly given the Linksys iPhone product a blaze of the kind of publicity you simply can't buy.
I do wonder now if this was a setup by Linksys and they didn't intend to give up the trademark without a loud and public fight, not for the money but so that someone, somewhere in the world would hear about their product and maybe buy a couple of them. It's not a bad strategy, especially since they seem like the underdogs
I mean, this case sounds like an example of the stubbornness of Steve, but what if it's an elaborate publicity stunt? Smart one, too.
I wonder how much publicity Tiger Direct got out of the bizarre Tiger vs Apple suit?
You see, I really wouldn't think Steve would make a dumb decision like not have the rights nailed down tight before MacWorld
D
More info (Score:5, Informative)
Commentary from Mark Chandler, Cisco's SVP and General Counsel, on Apple's infringement of Cisco's iPhone trademark: [cisco.com]
"Cisco owns the iPhone trademark. We have since 2000, when we bought a company called Infogear Technology, which had developed a product that combined web access and telephone. Infogear's registrations for the mark date to 1996, before iMacs and iPods were even glimmers in Apple's eye. We shipped and/or supported that iPhone product for years. We have been shipping new, updated iPhone products since last spring, and had a formal launch late last year. Apple knows this; they approached us about the iPhone trademark as far back as 2001, and have approached us several times over the past year."
Re:Trademark info (Score:5, Funny)
WOW! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:WOW! (Score:5, Informative)
In the words of Trump, "You're Fired"
-Ed
Re:Trademark info (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Trademark info (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Trademark info (Score:5, Interesting)
Another question would be *when* apple entered into talks with cisco to use the name. was this before or after cisco had already released thier own mobile phone with the iPhone name? hrrm.
Don't Worry, It's OK (Score:5, Funny)
obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
iPhowned!
Cisco was willing to negotiate (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Cisco was willing to negotiate (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't for a moment believe that a company like Cisco would give in without enormous sums of money changing hands.
Or maybe they want a percentage of profits? Apple stock? Who knows.
Re:Cisco was willing to negotiate (Score:5, Insightful)
Given the way that US trademark law works, where you have to actively defend your trademark, Cisco _has_ to sue Apple to show that they are defending their trademark, otherwise anyone would be able to abuse it. However, just because they lodge a lawsuit doesn't mean that they've got an army of trained attack lawyers ready to take Apple down.
My bet is that it's purely a pro-forma move to defend the trademark, which will get dropped the instant the paperwork for the agreement is done.
Trademark abandonment (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Trademark abandonment (Score:4, Insightful)
It's OK (Score:5, Insightful)
Suggested name change (Score:4, Funny)
In other news the Cisco Kid wants his name back. His legal firm Pancho, Pancho and Pancho are filing papers Monday to block Cisco from using his trademarked name.
why you don't publicly name your product... (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
Personally; I hope the judge hands down the ruling "You've both been acting like complete dickheads."
KFG
Cisco just following the letter of the law? (Score:5, Informative)
It's still possible that Apple/Cisco are in final talks over details of the trademark "iPhone" (both "playing nice"/with the assumption that a final deal will be reached), but the Cisco lawyers are just doing what they are supposed to do - even though they have no intention of suing Apple over it.
Just a thought.
Re:iFirst (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Duh (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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)
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)
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/
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://
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, Interesting)
Boy do I remember that chat software, even back to when Yahoo used it for their chat. All I remember from it are the long list of flaws that I used to exploit for it. Like, downloading the rooms303.exe file from your FTP site and configuring it to connect to another server on port 4071 to create an admin user, and then have full control over the other server.
Or the other trick of logging in with a telnet client on port 4020 and pasting an ASCII telnet character to automatically load URLs in the other users' client software. This was especially used with the flaws in the HTML client to make people say something, or execute commands, such as
I've always wondered, did you guys know of all the flaws in ichat? The "community" kept it pretty quiet, although I'm sure the big wigs at Yahoo, MTV, townhall and nintendo all knew about them.
Re:what about these guys? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes
Re:what about these guys? (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, if the mark was already identified with somebody else before you used it, the registration doesn't help much.
So, here's a possible scenario: Cisco registers 10 years ago, doesn't use it. 6 years after their registration, Apple comes along and claims the 'i' abbreviation. Now, the mark is Apple's despite the registration. Cisco comes along, creates an 'iPhone,' claiming priority based on its earlier registration. But, it's too late: they lost it by not using the mark within 3 years of the original registration.
(Not saying that I have the facts right on that. It's just a possible theory under which Apple could win.)
Re:Fire the lawyers (Score:5, Interesting)
there already is. [law.com]