Cisco Sues Apple Over iPhone Trademark

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."

Trademark info

[traindirector]

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:what about these guys?

[winkydink]

Actually, there was a whole dot-com phenomena of putting "i" in front of things too. iDefense Labs is the one that springs immediately to mind as a survivor from that era.

Re:what about these guys?

[Dynedain]

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?

[Brandee07]

Why would he sue Apple? He sits on the board.

Re:Trademark info

[Xero]

According to TFA, Cisco says "it had been negotiating for several years with Apple over a licensing agreement, but that Apple lawyers had not signed and returned the final contract." I really wonder why this "final contract" was so unappealing to apple and they just decided to announce the phone anyways.

Re:MacPhone maybe?

[Millenniumman]

Internet. The original iMac (the first iThing) was touted as being easy to connect to the internet.

WOW!

[HaeMaker]

I googled the lawyer who filed this for Cisco/linksys, scroll down for her list of clients [fenwick.com]!

Re:WOW!

[edflyerssn007]

Can we say Conflict of Interest?

In the words of Trump, "You're Fired"

-Ed

Re:what about these guys?

[EvanED]

Actually this post is wrong: the recent use of "iPhone" dates back over a year. There's a Linksys iPhone that was available [amazon.com] as early as November 2005. (Linksys is owned by Cisco.)

It still could have been named with a thought to creating a conflict with a potential Apple name, but that's at least no longer obviously the case.

Re:Trademark info

[Kalriath]

Um...

Status: Opposition Pending

That means they DON'T own it. In fact, I'd guess it means "this trademark is contested"

Re:Trademark info

[billsoxs]

Then the Japanese market could see the FujiPhone,

I think that Fuji might complain about that - however the fact that Cisco just did this AND the iPhone name has been hanging around Apple for oh 3 years would seem to me to suggest that Cisco is just playing games - and that a court will find it as such,

My $0.0002 (after inflation)

Pot ~ Kettle ~ Black- I need 4 pallets of tomatoes

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, [sysco.com] called Cisco [cisco.com] - and they are upset about phonetic infringement!

Sysco had the name 'sis-co' 14 years Before Cisco attempted to take the name 'sis-co'.

Hell, if Apple music company in the UK can attack Apple computer (no relation) over the word *apple*
(prior art 4.1 million years ago - fruit evolution) ,
it seems that Sysco would have a very good case against Cisco for name dilution.

Imagine saying 'I need to pick up the new Cisco router and install it over at the Sysco Warehouse.'
Confusing?

The first "iphone"

[Supertroll]

Back in early 1995 a company called Vocaltec released a program called "Iphone" for Windows 3.1 that allowed PC to PC voice calls. It used EFnet IRC channels for the handshake which pissed off a lot of server administrators because the program couldn't function as a standard IRC client. The only thing an iphone user could do was connect to an IRC server, join #iphone channels and initiate calls with other iphone clients.

Cisco just following the letter of the law?

[oz_paulb]

I believe that a trademark holder must vigorously defend their trademark from infringement, otherwise they can lose it.

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:Trademark info

[AKAImBatman]

I really wonder why this "final contract" was so unappealing to apple and they just decided to announce the phone anyways.

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:Good Idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

GP sure was, but he referenced it correctly...

Re:Trademark info

[Meatloaf Surprise]

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

What do you mean? Cisco just released the iPhone like a month ago.

Re:Trademark info

[JorDan Clock]

Ask and ye shall recieve [dailytech.com].

It's actually not a half bad sounding little gadget, either.

Re:Trademark info

[Bishop]

The Linksys iPhone [reghardware.co.uk]. Linksys is a Cisco brand.

Re:Trademark info

[yesteraeon]

I'm not sure where you got your info from. Here's the whois info on gmail.co.uk:

Request: gmail.co.uk
        Domain name:
                gmail.co.uk
        Registrant:
                Google Inc
        Registrant type:
                Non-UK Corporation
        Registrant's address:
                1600 Amphitheatre parkway
                Mountian View
                CA
                9403 3
                United States

More info

[Udo Schmitz]

It does seem a little suspicious

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

[Warg! The Orcs!!]

The Gmail/Googlemail thing wasn't a domain name issue. Google anounced their Gmail project before securing trademarks in every nation. An enterprising frim quickly registered the name Gmail in the UK. They then demanded that Google either stop using the name or pay up huge piles of lovely cash for it. The figure £30m was mentioned at the time. Google thought "Nah!" and decided to use Googlemail instead. New UK subscribers cannot get a 'gmail' account, it has to be 'googlemail'.