Jump to content

Cisco is suing Apple for the iPhone trademark!

SquidCombo

By SquidCombo,
in Reader News and Reviews

 Share
29 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

dark4181
dark4181
Posted
Posted

one report i saw said that apple never actually signed the agreement... deadline was tuesday night

 

and cisco wanted joint usage of the name... they want to be able to use it, becuz they have a product already out under that name

DiaboliK
DiaboliK
Posted
Posted (edited)

if you remember way back when about 6 months ago if you goto iphone.org it redirected you to the apple store. :wallbash:

 

*edit i just tried it again and it took me straight to the iphone at apple's site.*

Edited by DiaboliK
erbic
erbic
Posted
Posted

Saw this coming. When I first saw the Apple iPhone, I thought, "isn't Linksys/Cisco already selling their own iPhones?"

 

Be fun to see how this turns out. Wonder who'll be forced to change the name. My money's on Apple losing, sad as it is, since Cisco's owned the trademark for much longer.

 

What'll they change the name to? iMobile? iCell? <--yeah that sucks

SaberSHO
SaberSHO
Posted
Posted

I think apple will pay whatever cisco asks for before they will change the name of the iPhone. Im sure they have already spent millions on advertising over the next year or so. Not to mention the bad image it will get them if they change the name now, after its been announced. My money is on a settlement wiht Cisco....Apple simply can NOT change the name now.

trav1085
trav1085
Posted
Posted (edited)

What if Apple loses the lawsuit (which I doubt will happen) then they'll lose millions of dollars be forced to join up with Microsoft and they'll have to change to "LPhone" and "LPod"!

 

I noticed this on the iPhone page at the bottom, what does this mean

 

This device has not been authorized as required by the rules of the Federal Communications Commission. This device is not, and may not be, offered for sale or lease, or sold or leased, until authorization is obtained.

 

I'm guessing it's just too early for them to get authorization or it's pending.

Edited by trav1085
macmaniac
macmaniac
Posted
Posted

It takes months to get FCC approval, hence the disclaimer.

 

This cisco case will be free publicity for Apple, win or loose. I can't see Apple "winning" this, tho. There is plenty of time for a deal to be hammered out by the lawyers.

 

Frankly, I'm gettting iTired of this iNaming scheme....

 

Just call it the Apple Phone.

Lostgame
Lostgame
Posted
Posted (edited)

Yes, but the ?phone is not an iPod, and an iPod is what everyone wants. The iPod is made for teens who want the "in" MP3 player and they could care less if it's made by Apple or Microsoft or SanDisk, as long as it says "iPod" on it and looks like an iPod they will buy it.

 

Take away the 'i' and Apple's losing something.

 

?tv for an older audience was a good choice though.

Edited by lostgame
cls
cls
Posted
Posted

Hey all, new to this forum. I don't know the rules on external posting, so I will simply copy and paste the post I made elsewhere... Those who love the Apple "iPhone," have heart, they could win! ;)

 

POST:

 

I think there are a couple things people should understand about Trademarks in the US. While my training is in Canadian TM Law, most of the principles should carry over.

 

1) A Trademark really serves 2 purposes. Primarily a Trademark is used as a single source identifier. That is, the Trademark in the eyes of the public is seen to be from a single "company" (source). The second is an indicator of quality. That is not to say what level of quality, but that all goods (or services), associated with the Trademark are of the same quality. For a company, a Trademark registration gives them certain measures of protection as well, such as the right to exclusive use of the granted Trademark - but we can skip that for now.

 

2) A Trademark only gives the Trademark holder protection for the goods and services under which the Registrar approves the application. Why is this important? A strong case can be made (and this appears to be one of Apple's angles), that the category under which Cisco's Trademark was approved does not grant them the right to exclusive use to the name "iPhone" with regards to cellular phones (and some others - again, skipping).

 

So now to the bread and butter. Apple can, and appears to be willing to fight Cisco on this. They will try to distinguish their mark from Cisco's. Other factors that come into play are know as "channels of trade." Meaning, who, what, and where the products are sold, and often taking into account the level of sophistication of the consumers. Apple will undoubtedly try to show that there is no confusion between Cisco's iPhone and Apple's iPhone in the eyes of the consumer (which is what counts). In short, I forsee Apple saying "our iPhone is different (legally) than your iPhone." Another attack likely to be seen if this makes it to the courts, is that there are several applications for the mark iPhone in similar categories of goods. While only the InfoGear applications appear to be approved, this doesn't prevent common law rights (someone has been using the Trademark without registering it, then maybe later decides to try to register it). As Trademarks need to function as source identifiers, having multiple Trademarks or applications on file for the same or essentially the same Trademark could actually weaken Cisco's rights to the use of iPhone - as the mark is inherently not distinct if it is commonly used. This is especially true if it can be shown that these products have co-existed in the marketplace without confusion to the consumer.

 

All of this could be a moot point. The other reason I believe Apple could have gone on with the iPhone name is simple legal manuvering. Intellectual Property lawsuits are often lengthy and expensive (first you can fight with the USPTO over the validty of a Trademark, then you can appeal etc etc... finally landing in an actual court room... someday). This could be Apple's way of convincing Cisco to give them a better deal, or simply to sell the iPhone Trademark alltogether to Apple.

 

Sorry for making this post so long, it's actually a field I'm interested in. I may have over simplified, I did leave some information out for the sake of not boring anyone to death. I hope this gives you a glimpse into the "Exciting" world of Trademarks. :)

 

http://www.uspto.gov -- US Patents and Trademarks Office (Pretty much everything you would ever want to know about Trademarks)

 

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=sear...tate=b3pat8.1.1

 

This is the easier of the forms to use for searching. Try things like "i phone" , i-phone, *iphone*. Enjoy!

e-rick
e-rick
Posted
Posted

A strong case can be made (and this appears to be one of Apple's angles), that the category under which Cisco's Trademark was approved does not grant them the right to exclusive use to the name "iPhone".

 

My knowledge of US trademark law isn’t that great, but having a degree in Dutch law I can say I understand a bit of the basic principles of Trademarks and the difference between a cellphone and Cisco’s telephone’s can not be considered a significant difference in product category. A phone is a phone, it doesn’t really matter if you use the gsm-network, wifi or a landline.

Cisco has Trademarked “iPhone” for a phone, a handset. Apple is using the name “iPhone” for exactly that same thing.

 

Even though they are targetting completely different markets I feel that there is no strong case for Apple in attacking the Trademark on that point. And if there is ruled that Apple and Cisco are operating in different, non-competing markets (which in fact they are, cell-phones and other phones are definitely competitors) Cisco can easily defend that their trademark by claiming protection from dilution of their Trademark.( lose the capacity to signify a single source)

 

If I am correct Infogear was aquired by Cisco before they registered the Trademark, so legally they have been using the registered trademark since 1997 and registered it at some later point.

 

The need to function as source identifiers… This is important. If Apple will win it will probably be because of this.

The new iPhone doesn’t even exist, but it is clear that it is an Apple product. It has been clear for years that should Apple produce a phone it should be called iPhone.

Most Apple product names are preceded by an ‘i’. Product starting with a lowercase letter ‘i’ are commonly associated with Apple, therefore ‘ iPhone’ will never be able to correctly identify Cisco the source of the product.

cls
cls
Posted
Posted

Hey e-rick,

 

Thanks for your reply. I'm not certain what the classification system the Dutch use (or which Dutch speaking country you are actually from :P probably the Nice Classification?). Lets go with Nice, as even countries that do not use the Nice system seem to hold it up as an example when examining.

 

Class 38

 

C0067 Communications by computer terminals

C0068 Communications by fiber [fibre] optic networks

C0070 Communications by telephone

 

C0021 Cellular telephone communication

 

These are just quick examples and by no means full explanation or examination of the Trademark now owned by Cisco. By a means of a quick search you can see that while they are both Class 38 goods, they are indeed subclassed entirely seperately. We all know the law is open to interpretation, so this is merely how I see Apple proceeding forward, while Cisco will try and argue the marks are indeed in the same class/channels of trade etc. Cisco has demonstrated this by their lawsuit, and Apple through statements which seem to indicate my point of view; '"We think Cisco's trademark lawsuit is silly," said Natalie Kerris, an Apple spokeswoman' and '"Apple is the first company to ever use the 'iPhone' name for a cell phone," she said. "We believe that Cisco's trademark registration is tenuous at best."'

 

Cisco really did one thing right though. They made sure they brought a product to market bearing the iPhone trademark. Since their acquisition of InfoGear, it is my understanding that the product had not been marketed or sold, hence no use. Someone inside at Cisco obviously woke up and realized they needed to launch a product bearing the mark or lest they might lose it [to Apple]. Still, their lack of use for several years may come back to haunt them. There are a couple live applications for iPhone and variants (note that I did say live, not approved). While these themselves might be rejected, that does not eliminate any common law rights companies have accrued over the years Cisco was not using or policing the mark. This is a further problem as you probably know, one must protect ones IP if one wants to keep it! Failing to police the mark for the 5-7 years they were not using it, may prove very damaging.

 

In short, years ago, classifications of goods and services became VERY specific. One really good example is what used to be classifyable as "Computer Software" is considered far too broad these days. You would need to be specific in the type of software, or where it is used. Perhaps; "Computer Software - Video Games - Educational" for example :)

 

PS: I realize there are differences between the US classification system and the Nice system. For sake of discussion I merely made some quick references to some Nice categories I thought the TM might fall under (I didn't actually bother digging up the TM as we are more or less simply discussing the theory here).

 

Cheers!

xtraa
xtraa
Posted
Posted (edited)

Maybe they can call it ApplePhone :rolleyes:

 

In germany the company T-mobile tried to capture the letter "T", too. After

that attempt failed, they tried to get the rights for the mangenta color.

 

I think this can only be solved by a judge, because the letter "i" in general

indicates a product from or for Apple. Now that there is a conflict on the same market,

it could make a difference to name a phone iSomething.

 

An example would be the name Apple itself. As long, as it was pure IT business

no one cared. But when they started in music-biz, the Apple-Recordlabel from the

Beatles tried to appeal that.

 

Maybe these convictions shows, that it will be not easy for Apple to argue.

Edited by xtraa
McSkywalker
McSkywalker
Posted
Posted

lol thanks :)

Urbz
Urbz
Posted
Posted

especially because it's so obviously to avoid Apple getting it.

I'm sure they knew, or had strong inklings, that there would be an iPhone from Apple, if not soon, eventually, and that is the only reason it was renewed.

 

If cisco didn't plan this, hang me.

 

-Urby

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...