The Apple iPhone Thread (1 Viewer)

[[icon]]

the biggest deterrent to me getting this phone is Cingular's notoriously bad customer service on new (expensive) models, they refuse to sell insurance on the bleeding edge premium models - so if you break it - good luck getting it fixed.

When razors were new, I broke mine and they replaced it with a piece of #### phone that wasn't worth the monthly insurance premium.

Interesting. I had no such problem with Sprint when my Samsung smartphone blew up a few times. I wonder if we will earn favor as a corporate customer with many phones in play. I know our VP of HR trashed a just released blackberry and he got a new one no questions asked. Also, when I didn't like my RAZR they swapped it out for a SLVR no quetsions asked as well.

 

[[icon]]

I don't know a lot about trademarking, but I just don't see how Apple has a case here. If somebody came along and made an MP3 player called the "iPod", they'd be eaten up by Apple's pack of lawyers.

Trademarking is very product specfic. For instance if someone has a golf swing trainer named something that doesn't mean we can't make a golf shaft named that. Even within the same industry. It just depends on HOW the industry is segmented with regards to trademarks and what segments Cisco owns the name within. It's very possible that VOIP phones are in a dfiferent segment than Cell phones. The concern for ME is that this phone DOES hop online via 802.11, though it doesn't make calls via that route (could explain that gap in functionality).... Welll see...

 

[drpill]

' date='Jan 11 2007, 01:30 PM' post='6187743']

I don't know a lot about trademarking, but I just don't see how Apple has a case here. If somebody came along and made an MP3 player called the "iPod", they'd be eaten up by Apple's pack of lawyers.

Trademarking is very product specfic. For instance if someone has a golf swing trainer named something that doesn't mean we can't make a golf shaft named that. Even within the same industry. It just depends on HOW the industry is segmented with regards to trademarks and what segments Cisco owns the name within. It's very possible that VOIP phones are in a dfiferent segment than Cell phones. The concern for ME is that this phone DOES hop online via 802.11, though it doesn't make calls via that route (could explain that gap in functionality).... Welll see...

So you're telling me I could, for example, make a car called the iPod and Apple would have no recourse? That doesn't seem right to me.

 

[[icon]]

' date='Jan 11 2007, 01:30 PM' post='6187743']

I don't know a lot about trademarking, but I just don't see how Apple has a case here. If somebody came along and made an MP3 player called the "iPod", they'd be eaten up by Apple's pack of lawyers.

Trademarking is very product specfic. For instance if someone has a golf swing trainer named something that doesn't mean we can't make a golf shaft named that. Even within the same industry. It just depends on HOW the industry is segmented with regards to trademarks and what segments Cisco owns the name within. It's very possible that VOIP phones are in a dfiferent segment than Cell phones. The concern for ME is that this phone DOES hop online via 802.11, though it doesn't make calls via that route (could explain that gap in functionality).... Welll see...

So you're telling me I could, for example, make a car called the iPod and Apple would have no recourse? That doesn't seem right to me.

That is pretty much what I'm telling you. Look at the Gilette Fusion razor... the Callaway Fusion golf club.. and the ford Fusion car.Now ... in Some cases I believe you can get a universal patent if a term is very unique or if you can prove you need universal patent protection... but I'm not a lawyer so I don't know the nuances of how/when you can do that.

 

[Joe Bryant]

' date='Jan 11 2007, 12:43 PM' post='6187818']

' date='Jan 11 2007, 01:30 PM' post='6187743']

I don't know a lot about trademarking, but I just don't see how Apple has a case here. If somebody came along and made an MP3 player called the "iPod", they'd be eaten up by Apple's pack of lawyers.

Trademarking is very product specfic. For instance if someone has a golf swing trainer named something that doesn't mean we can't make a golf shaft named that. Even within the same industry. It just depends on HOW the industry is segmented with regards to trademarks and what segments Cisco owns the name within. It's very possible that VOIP phones are in a dfiferent segment than Cell phones. The concern for ME is that this phone DOES hop online via 802.11, though it doesn't make calls via that route (could explain that gap in functionality).... Welll see...

So you're telling me I could, for example, make a car called the iPod and Apple would have no recourse? That doesn't seem right to me.

That is pretty much what I'm telling you. Look at the Gilette Fusion razor... the Callaway Fusion golf club.. and the ford Fusion car.Now ... in Some cases I believe you can get a universal patent if a term is very unique or if you can prove you need universal patent protection... but I'm not a lawyer so I don't know the nuances of how/when you can do that.

The only difference there is that I'd be shocked if Cisco's trademark legal team didn't register the iphone name to specifically protect against another company (and of course specifically Apple) from using the iphone name for a... phone.It's not like someone has developed a vacuum cleaner and calling it an iphone. If you were going to register and protect the name iphone, virtually every part of the protection would be focused on having a lock down airtight case against Apple when they decided one day to make a phone.This would be like Taylor Made making a Fusion golf club.J

 

[goonsquad]

The only difference there is that I'd be shocked if Cisco's trademark legal team didn't register the iphone name to specifically protect against another company (and of course specifically Apple) from using the iphone name for a... phone.

Cisco didn't actual trademark "iPhone" themselves. It was trademarked by a company named InfoGear, which Cisco aquired in 2000, thus aquiring the trademark as well. Seems Apple feels the trademark isn't airtight.

 

[Otis]

' date='Jan 11 2007, 01:30 PM' post='6187743']

I don't know a lot about trademarking, but I just don't see how Apple has a case here. If somebody came along and made an MP3 player called the "iPod", they'd be eaten up by Apple's pack of lawyers.

Trademarking is very product specfic. For instance if someone has a golf swing trainer named something that doesn't mean we can't make a golf shaft named that. Even within the same industry. It just depends on HOW the industry is segmented with regards to trademarks and what segments Cisco owns the name within. It's very possible that VOIP phones are in a dfiferent segment than Cell phones. The concern for ME is that this phone DOES hop online via 802.11, though it doesn't make calls via that route (could explain that gap in functionality).... Welll see...

So you're telling me I could, for example, make a car called the iPod and Apple would have no recourse? That doesn't seem right to me.

That's trademark law.

 

[Otis]

' date='Jan 11 2007, 12:43 PM' post='6187818']

' date='Jan 11 2007, 01:30 PM' post='6187743']

I don't know a lot about trademarking, but I just don't see how Apple has a case here. If somebody came along and made an MP3 player called the "iPod", they'd be eaten up by Apple's pack of lawyers.

Trademarking is very product specfic. For instance if someone has a golf swing trainer named something that doesn't mean we can't make a golf shaft named that. Even within the same industry. It just depends on HOW the industry is segmented with regards to trademarks and what segments Cisco owns the name within. It's very possible that VOIP phones are in a dfiferent segment than Cell phones. The concern for ME is that this phone DOES hop online via 802.11, though it doesn't make calls via that route (could explain that gap in functionality).... Welll see...

So you're telling me I could, for example, make a car called the iPod and Apple would have no recourse? That doesn't seem right to me.

That is pretty much what I'm telling you. Look at the Gilette Fusion razor... the Callaway Fusion golf club.. and the ford Fusion car.Now ... in Some cases I believe you can get a universal patent if a term is very unique or if you can prove you need universal patent protection... but I'm not a lawyer so I don't know the nuances of how/when you can do that.

The only difference there is that I'd be shocked if Cisco's trademark legal team didn't register the iphone name to specifically protect against another company (and of course specifically Apple) from using the iphone name for a... phone.It's not like someone has developed a vacuum cleaner and calling it an iphone. If you were going to register and protect the name iphone, virtually every part of the protection would be focused on having a lock down airtight case against Apple when they decided one day to make a phone.This would be like Taylor Made making a Fusion golf club.J

The difference being does Cisco really make a product called the iPhone? Has anyone here ever heard of it? (I certainly haven't). Remember that one of the most fundamental purposes of trademark law is to protect consumers by preventing confusion as to source of the product. If there is no likelihood of confusion, there are no damages.I find it highly unlikely that many folks will be rolling into the Apple store in July buying an iPhone thinking they are getting this awesome new Cisco telephone product. And Apple certainly isn't free-riding on any good will developed in Cisco with respect to the name.

 

[One]

The only difference there is that I'd be shocked if Cisco's trademark legal team didn't register the iphone name to specifically protect against another company (and of course specifically Apple) from using the iphone name for a... phone.

Cisco didn't actual trademark "iPhone" themselves. It was trademarked by a company named InfoGear, which Cisco aquired in 2000, thus aquiring the trademark as well. Seems Apple feels the trademark isn't airtight.

It's a possibility back in '91 InfoGear didn't trademark specifically enough. Obviously Apple thinks it has a case after seeing the details of the trademark. Especially after releasing an "atomic bomb" names iPhone.

 

[GroveDiesel]

' date='Jan 11 2007, 12:43 PM' post='6187818']

' date='Jan 11 2007, 01:30 PM' post='6187743']

I don't know a lot about trademarking, but I just don't see how Apple has a case here. If somebody came along and made an MP3 player called the "iPod", they'd be eaten up by Apple's pack of lawyers.

Trademarking is very product specfic. For instance if someone has a golf swing trainer named something that doesn't mean we can't make a golf shaft named that. Even within the same industry. It just depends on HOW the industry is segmented with regards to trademarks and what segments Cisco owns the name within. It's very possible that VOIP phones are in a dfiferent segment than Cell phones. The concern for ME is that this phone DOES hop online via 802.11, though it doesn't make calls via that route (could explain that gap in functionality).... Welll see...

So you're telling me I could, for example, make a car called the iPod and Apple would have no recourse? That doesn't seem right to me.

That is pretty much what I'm telling you. Look at the Gilette Fusion razor... the Callaway Fusion golf club.. and the ford Fusion car.Now ... in Some cases I believe you can get a universal patent if a term is very unique or if you can prove you need universal patent protection... but I'm not a lawyer so I don't know the nuances of how/when you can do that.

The only difference there is that I'd be shocked if Cisco's trademark legal team didn't register the iphone name to specifically protect against another company (and of course specifically Apple) from using the iphone name for a... phone.It's not like someone has developed a vacuum cleaner and calling it an iphone. If you were going to register and protect the name iphone, virtually every part of the protection would be focused on having a lock down airtight case against Apple when they decided one day to make a phone.This would be like Taylor Made making a Fusion golf club.J

If Apple's legal arguments are going to boil down to "well, our phone is a cellphone and their phone is a VOIP phone" I think they're screwed. The bottom line will be that they're both technologically advanced phones that can use the internet (albeit in different ways). I think a typical standard is simply whether average people could be confused by the names. And in this case I think the answer is almost certainly a yes. If a salesman held out a Cisco iPhone to someone and said "check out this iPhone" I think a typical response would be "oh, this is the new phone from Apple, isn't it?" I think another example would be if Nintendo decided to call their Wii a Playstation instead. The technology inside would be different, it wouldn't have Blu-Ray, it would use different discs, etc. So it would be using different technology but that wouldn't matter because at heart it is a gameplaying system. And at heart both phones are phones. You have to remember, this is a trademark, not a patent. I think even getting an "iPhone" trademark on a regular old phone would suffice. Apple better have another name in mind because either they're going to have to pay a HUGE amount of money to Cisco or they're going to have their iPhone barred from the market by a judge.

 

[GroveDiesel]

The difference being does Cisco really make a product called the iPhone? Has anyone here ever heard of it? (I certainly haven't). Remember that one of the most fundamental purposes of trademark law is to protect consumers by preventing confusion as to source of the product. If there is no likelihood of confusion, there are no damages.I find it highly unlikely that many folks will be rolling into the Apple store in July buying an iPhone thinking they are getting this awesome new Cisco telephone product. And Apple certainly isn't free-riding on any good will developed in Cisco with respect to the name.

Cisco makes a phone that works over VoIP called the iPhone. I don't know that it's a huge seller as VoIP phones aren't hugely popular yet. But they definitely do have a product out there and I definitely think that the name could create confusion. If Joe Consumer walked into a Best Buy and saw a Cisco iPhone sitting on the shelf, I would think that they'd be really confused. Most people would probably think that it was some kind of rippoff of Apple.

 

[goonsquad]

The difference being does Cisco really make a product called the iPhone? Has anyone here ever heard of it? (I certainly haven't). Remember that one of the most fundamental purposes of trademark law is to protect consumers by preventing confusion as to source of the product. If there is no likelihood of confusion, there are no damages.

I find it highly unlikely that many folks will be rolling into the Apple store in July buying an iPhone thinking they are getting this awesome new Cisco telephone product. And Apple certainly isn't free-riding on any good will developed in Cisco with respect to the name.

Yes, Cisco (under the Linksys brand) just released a VOIP phone named iPhone a few weeks ago. Linksys iPhone

 

[goonsquad]

If Joe Consumer walked into a Best Buy and saw a Cisco iPhone sitting on the shelf, I would think that they'd be really confused. Most people would probably think that it was some kind of rippoff of Apple.

Which it is. Perhaps Apple's argument is that Cisco is intentionally using the iPhone name to create confusion and lead people to believe it's an Apple product. The timing of Cisco's release is certainly suspect, and iAnything is certainly synonymous with Apple products (iMac, iPod, iTunes, iMovie, iBook... etc).No idea if that's a legally defendable position.

 

[Otis]

If Joe Consumer walked into a Best Buy and saw a Cisco iPhone sitting on the shelf, I would think that they'd be really confused. Most people would probably think that it was some kind of rippoff of Apple.

This is another factor in the equation. If the products are sold through different sales channels, there would be less likelihood of confusion. As far as I have seen, VoIP has been largely an enterprise product to date -- it's not big in a home (with the exception of Vonage and Skype perhaps, which are growing in popularity). The iPhone is purely a consumer electronics product.

 

[Joe Bryant]

The difference being does Cisco really make a product called the iPhone? Has anyone here ever heard of it? (I certainly haven't). Remember that one of the most fundamental purposes of trademark law is to protect consumers by preventing confusion as to source of the product. If there is no likelihood of confusion, there are no damages.

I find it highly unlikely that many folks will be rolling into the Apple store in July buying an iPhone thinking they are getting this awesome new Cisco telephone product. And Apple certainly isn't free-riding on any good will developed in Cisco with respect to the name.

Yes, Cisco (under the Linksys brand) just released a VOIP phone named iPhone a few weeks ago. Linksys iPhone

Yikes. I didn't know that. If Cisco's guys screw that up (meaning they don't get a ton of $$$ from apple), they should be embarrassed.

J

 

[GroveDiesel]

If Joe Consumer walked into a Best Buy and saw a Cisco iPhone sitting on the shelf, I would think that they'd be really confused. Most people would probably think that it was some kind of rippoff of Apple.

Which it is. Perhaps Apple's argument is that Cisco is intentionally using the iPhone name to create confusion and lead people to believe it's an Apple product. The timing of Cisco's release is certainly suspect, and iAnything is certainly synonymous with Apple products (iMac, iPod, iTunes, iMovie, iBook... etc).No idea if that's a legally defendable position.

I'm not sure how it's a rippoff of Apple. They've had the trademark since 1996 (or at least the company that Cisco purchased did). That's before Apple released their first iMac. Cisco has been designing this phone/technology for quite some time. They've indicated that their plans going forward are to move more fully into more technologically advanced phones. And while Apple's past useage of "i" as a prefix could get some weight, it's unlikely that it would get much. There are plenty of other products out there that have used "i" as a prefix and it's not possible to just trade "i" as a prefix in general.

If Joe Consumer walked into a Best Buy and saw a Cisco iPhone sitting on the shelf, I would think that they'd be really confused. Most people would probably think that it was some kind of rippoff of Apple.

This is another factor in the equation. If the products are sold through different sales channels, there would be less likelihood of confusion. As far as I have seen, VoIP has been largely an enterprise product to date -- it's not big in a home (with the exception of Vonage and Skype perhaps, which are growing in popularity). The iPhone is purely a consumer electronics product.

Cisco just released a VoIP phone under their brand name "Linksys" in December. It's a consumer product. I'm not sure that it would matter much anyway. If they own the rights to "iPhone" and it covers that general product, I don't think that Apple would win no matter what chain of distribution they have. If they had plans to later expand the name to a consumer line they would be essentially foiled by Apple's version.Here's a pretty good summary of events so far: CNet article

 

[Joe Bryant]

Cisco just released a VoIP phone under their brand name "Linksys" in December. It's a consumer product. I'm not sure that it would matter much anyway. If they own the rights to "iPhone" and it covers that general product, I don't think that Apple would win no matter what chain of distribution they have. If they had plans to later expand the name to a consumer line they would be essentially foiled by Apple's version.

Here's a pretty good summary of events so far: CNet article

Hi Grove,I'm no attorney but one of my best friends specializes in this kind of stuff. It's always been my understanding that actually going to market and implementing the product with the name carries much more weight than just squatting on a legal registration. So I would think it's pretty significant they have already introduced this phone to the market. For what that's worth.

J

 

[Otis]

I'm not sure how it's a rippoff of Apple. They've had the trademark since 1996 (or at least the company that Cisco purchased did). That's before Apple released their first iMac. Cisco has been designing this phone/technology for quite some time. They've indicated that their plans going forward are to move more fully into more technologically advanced phones.

Realize though that part of the strength/value of a trademark is based on its use. If you have a trademark and don't do anything with it, it's substantially weaker. So if they acqured this mark years ago and did nothing with it, it's probably a very weak mark.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Cisco just released a VoIP phone under their brand name "Linksys" in December. It's a consumer product. I'm not sure that it would matter much anyway. If they own the rights to "iPhone" and it covers that general product, I don't think that Apple would win no matter what chain of distribution they have. If they had plans to later expand the name to a consumer line they would be essentially foiled by Apple's version.

Here's a pretty good summary of events so far: CNet article

Hi Grove,I'm no attorney but one of my best friends specializes in this kind of stuff. It's always been my understanding that actually going to market and implementing the product with the name carries much more weight than just squatting on a legal registration. So I would think it's pretty significant they have already introduced this phone to the market. For what that's worth.

J

That's my understanding as well. From what I've read so far it's not like Cisco just slapped the name on something that they threw together last minute either. This is a path that they've planned on taking for quite some time. Cisco is really trying to expand their business in the telephony industry. The fact that they own the trademark, have planned this market move for a while and already have a product out can not bode well for Apple.

 

[goonsquad]

If Joe Consumer walked into a Best Buy and saw a Cisco iPhone sitting on the shelf, I would think that they'd be really confused. Most people would probably think that it was some kind of rippoff of Apple.

Which it is. Perhaps Apple's argument is that Cisco is intentionally using the iPhone name to create confusion and lead people to believe it's an Apple product. The timing of Cisco's release is certainly suspect, and iAnything is certainly synonymous with Apple products (iMac, iPod, iTunes, iMovie, iBook... etc).No idea if that's a legally defendable position.

I'm not sure how it's a rippoff of Apple. They've had the trademark since 1996 (or at least the company that Cisco purchased did). That's before Apple released their first iMac. Cisco has been designing this phone/technology for quite some time. They've indicated that their plans going forward are to move more fully into more technologically advanced phones.

Good article, thanks for posting it. CNet seems to agree with my logic, although isn't optimistic about Apple's chances:

Apple's only choice is to argue that its "iFamily" of trademarks such as iPod, iTunes and iMac create confusion in a customer's mind as to who makes the iPhone, Sunstein said. It's not out of the question, but in general the company in Cisco's position with clear rights to the trademark has a stronger argument than a company making the family argument, he said.

 

[goonsquad]

In the U.S., courts evaluate trademark disputes based on a list of 13 factors, including how similar the trademarks are, how well-recognized they are--and, crucially, whether there will be "any actual confusion" on the part of consumers.

It'll be interesting to see how much weight the courts place on Apple's ownership of the iFamily vs Cisco's ownership of the specific name.

 

[Otis]

In the U.S., courts evaluate trademark disputes based on a list of 13 factors, including how similar the trademarks are, how well-recognized they are--and, crucially, whether there will be "any actual confusion" on the part of consumers.

It'll be interesting to see how much weight the courts place on Apple's ownership of the iFamily vs Cisco's ownership of the specific name.

That's been my point. Nobody recognizes this Cisco iPhone. We've been talking about this on the board for days and nobody even thought about it.I don't think it's the slam dunk for Cisco that some here would have us believe.

 

[GroveDiesel]

In the U.S., courts evaluate trademark disputes based on a list of 13 factors, including how similar the trademarks are, how well-recognized they are--and, crucially, whether there will be "any actual confusion" on the part of consumers.

It'll be interesting to see how much weight the courts place on Apple's ownership of the iFamily vs Cisco's ownership of the specific name.

That's been my point. Nobody recognizes this Cisco iPhone. We've been talking about this on the board for days and nobody even thought about it.I don't think it's the slam dunk for Cisco that some here would have us believe.

They released the consumer version of the phone about a month ago. I'm not sure that that's a whole lot of time to establish a brand name. I'm not sure that it gives Apple free reign to use the name. And while it wasn't a huge part of the discussion, I believe that the trademark by Cisco was mentioned fairly early on here at FBG.I think that if nothing else, Apple's actions in trying to obtain the trademark will work heavily against them. They've been asking to buy the trademark for about 5 years now. They've gone after it heavily in the past year. They appeared to even be close to reaching an agreement of some sort as late as Monday night. They even went so far as to setup a shell company and try to register the trademark through the shell company during 2006. All of these actions would seem to indicate that Apple knew that they did not own the trademark.

 

[BoltBacker]

Does anyone else find....

"We think Cisco's trademark lawsuit is silly," said Natalie Kerris, an Apple spokeswoman.

.

.

.

The lawsuit follows years of negotiations between the two companies, which continued even as Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs was introducing the iPhone Tuesday during the Macworld show in San Francisco.

... a bit contradictory? So they negotiated for years(and right up to the introduction of their product) for the rights just for the fun of it since they knew a lawsuit from Cisco would be "silly" and they'd easily win?

 

[jhib]

I wonder how well this company is doing: iphone.com

I would think that their address would be pretty valuable right now.

edit: wait.... is that the same thing for the cisco one?

 

[goonsquad]

A British company called Orate Telecommunications Services also offers a VoIP phone called an iPhone, and closer to home, a San Jose, Calif., company called Teledex offers an iPhone for hotel rooms.

I wonder if Cisco has been as active in trying to stop others from infringing upon the iPhone trademark. I would think that if they were less aggresive in protecting the name from others it may help make Apple's case that they are intentionally holding the name in order to "ransom" it from Apple. Especially since these other phones are in direct competition with Cisco, in the exact same VOIP market.

 

[BoltBacker]

it may help make Apple's case that they are intentionally holding the name in order to "ransom" it from Apple.

Is that illegal?

 

[goonsquad]

it may help make Apple's case that they are intentionally holding the name in order to "ransom" it from Apple.

Is that illegal?

No idea. I doubt it, but might help sway a court descision in favor of Apple. The fact that there are other VOIP "iPhones" already in market is certainly interesting. Why wouldn't Cisco sue these other companies from competing in the exact same space with the exact same name? Would it void Cisco's claim of customer confusion, opening the door for Apple's claim of ownership of "iFamily"?Obviously, I'm not a lawyer.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Looks like Apple decided to ask forgiveness rather than permission to use the name:

Link

Cisco hits Apple with lawsuit over iPhone

Last Update: 7:58 PM ET Jan 10, 2007



Several companies already use the name "iPhone" for Voice-over-Internet products, Kerris said.

"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."

Kerris added: "If Cisco wants to challenge us on it, we are very confident we would prevail."

I don't know a lot about trademarking, but I just don't see how Apple has a case here. If somebody came along and made an MP3 player called the "iPod", they'd be eaten up by Apple's pack of lawyers.

I think the bolded part may hurt Ciscos case.A quick google search found:

The iPhone company

Ciscos Linksys iPhone

Comwaves iPhone

 

[goonsquad]

Looks like Apple decided to ask forgiveness rather than permission to use the name:

Link

Cisco hits Apple with lawsuit over iPhone

Last Update: 7:58 PM ET Jan 10, 2007



Several companies already use the name "iPhone" for Voice-over-Internet products, Kerris said.

"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."

Kerris added: "If Cisco wants to challenge us on it, we are very confident we would prevail."

I don't know a lot about trademarking, but I just don't see how Apple has a case here. If somebody came along and made an MP3 player called the "iPod", they'd be eaten up by Apple's pack of lawyers.

I think the bolded part may hurt Ciscos case.A quick google search found:

The iPhone company

Ciscos Linksys iPhone

Comwaves iPhone

iPhoneiPhone

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Looks like Apple decided to ask forgiveness rather than permission to use the name:

Link

Cisco hits Apple with lawsuit over iPhone

Last Update: 7:58 PM ET Jan 10, 2007



Several companies already use the name "iPhone" for Voice-over-Internet products, Kerris said.

"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."

Kerris added: "If Cisco wants to challenge us on it, we are very confident we would prevail."

I don't know a lot about trademarking, but I just don't see how Apple has a case here. If somebody came along and made an MP3 player called the "iPod", they'd be eaten up by Apple's pack of lawyers.

I think the bolded part may hurt Ciscos case.A quick google search found:

The iPhone company

Ciscos Linksys iPhone

Comwaves iPhone

iPhoneiPhone

I think Apples in a no-lose situation here. Technically the product hasn't launched yet. If the courts rule in favor of Cisco, they already have plenty of iMobile marketing and buzz prepped and may not have to turn over any profits from iPhone sales.

 

[Otis]

Looks like Apple decided to ask forgiveness rather than permission to use the name:

Link

Cisco hits Apple with lawsuit over iPhone

Last Update: 7:58 PM ET Jan 10, 2007



Several companies already use the name "iPhone" for Voice-over-Internet products, Kerris said.

"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."

Kerris added: "If Cisco wants to challenge us on it, we are very confident we would prevail."

I don't know a lot about trademarking, but I just don't see how Apple has a case here. If somebody came along and made an MP3 player called the "iPod", they'd be eaten up by Apple's pack of lawyers.

I think the bolded part may hurt Ciscos case.A quick google search found:

The iPhone company

Ciscos Linksys iPhone

Comwaves iPhone

Exactly. The more I look at this, it is an incredibly weak mark. And, as noted above by goon, yes, Cisco's failure to police the mark acts to dilute it further.I'm not a trademark lawyer, but I am an IP lawyer, so I'm somewhat familiar with this area.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Looks like Apple decided to ask forgiveness rather than permission to use the name:

Link

Cisco hits Apple with lawsuit over iPhone

Last Update: 7:58 PM ET Jan 10, 2007



Several companies already use the name "iPhone" for Voice-over-Internet products, Kerris said.

"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."

Kerris added: "If Cisco wants to challenge us on it, we are very confident we would prevail."

I don't know a lot about trademarking, but I just don't see how Apple has a case here. If somebody came along and made an MP3 player called the "iPod", they'd be eaten up by Apple's pack of lawyers.

I think the bolded part may hurt Ciscos case.A quick google search found:

The iPhone company

Ciscos Linksys iPhone

Comwaves iPhone

Exactly. The more I look at this, it is an incredibly weak mark. And, as noted above by goon, yes, Cisco's failure to police the mark acts to dilute it further.I'm not a trademark lawyer, but I am an IP lawyer, so I'm somewhat familiar with this area.

iLawyer™

 

[Joe Bryant]

it may help make Apple's case that they are intentionally holding the name in order to "ransom" it from Apple.

Is that illegal?

I do think the courts look less favorably when the company is squatting or ransoming the name.But that's what I'm saying. It clearly looks like Cisco was serious about their iphone. Now I dunno, maybe they just stuck a new iphone logo on an existing phone. But if they can prove one of the assets they purchased in the deal was the rights to the iphone name and they've been actively developing the phone and now finally have it to market, that is a very compelling case.And it's not insignificant that this is Cisco. They don't have the style and hype of Apple or the money of Microsoft but this isn't like Footballguys coming out with a phone. Cisco is an uber serious player here.J

 

[Foosball God]

I hope Apple doesn't win this. Just because they started a new line of products with the "i" prefix doesn't mean they should be able to stomp on the trademark rights of anyone that had that previously.

Perhaps Cisco feels that those other companies were so small that they wouldn't damage the name recognition of their product, but obviously Apple's product will.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

...Footballguys coming out with a phone. J

That would be sweet.

 

[Foosball God]

...Footballguys coming out with a phone. J

That would be sweet.

They're still paying off the lawsuit for the Footballguys thong.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Ironically, I think Cisco winning would be a blessing in disguise for Apple. iPhone emphasizes only one aspect of the device (and the one aspect that won't significantly grow or distinguish it from future competition: it's a phone, we got it). But other names such as iMobile or something, with good Applesque marketing, could address the other convergent technologies they're packaging with it.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

...Footballguys coming out with a phone. J

That would be sweet.

They're still paying off the lawsuit for the Footballguys thong.

Was that the BVD-VBD misunderstanding of aught-four?

 

[Joe Bryant]

I hope Apple doesn't win this. Just because they started a new line of products with the "i" prefix doesn't mean they should be able to stomp on the trademark rights of anyone that had that previously.Perhaps Cisco feels that those other companies were so small that they wouldn't damage the name recognition of their product, but obviously Apple's product will.

Hi foos,I think that will be their angle. Because the ipod and to a lesser extent the imac and other software apps are so popular, they could make the argument they own "i-xxxxxxxxxxxx" I'm sure Microsoft fans find it very interesting to see Apple take the bully position against Cisco in this one.It's a blurry line. It'll be interesting to watch.J

 

[goonsquad]

I'm sure Microsoft fans find it very interesting to see Apple take the bully position against Cisco in this one.

Cisco is suing Apple, not the other way around. I have also read that part of Cisco's demands from Apple involved being allowed to incorporate Apple's technology into Cisco products. So it doesn't surprise me that Apple wouldn't play ball. Apple has been known to use it's muscle to protect it's trademarks in the past, even against much smaller companies. But I'm not sure I'd classify Apple as the bully in this one. Seems to me Cisco is trying to either extort an outrageous sum from Apple or to strong arm Apple into licensing it's technology to them (if there is indeed truth to the rumor, I couldn't find a link). Remember, Apple has been trying for years to work a deal with Cisco. Cisco's demands must be rediculous for Apple to take such a risk.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I'm sure Microsoft fans find it very interesting to see Apple take the bully position against Cisco in this one.

Cisco is suing Apple, not the other way around. I have also read that part of Cisco's demands from Apple involved being allowed to incorporate Apple's technology into Cisco products. So it doesn't surprise me that Apple wouldn't play ball. Apple has been known to use it's muscle to protect it's trademarks in the past, even against much smaller companies. But I'm not sure I'd classify Apple as the bully in this one. Seems to me Cisco is trying to either extort an outrageous sum from Apple or to strong arm Apple into licensing it's technology to them (if there is indeed truth to the rumor, I couldn't find a link). Remember, Apple has been trying for years to work a deal with Cisco. Cisco's demands must be rediculous for Apple to take such a risk.

I'm sure you know a lot more than I do about the details goon but it looks to me like Apple is clearly playing the Bully role muscling Cisco here. Cisco only sued after Apple made splashes across the world introducing the iphone, right? What choice did they have there?Apple made this an issue refusing to yield to Cisco's registration.As far as Cisco's demands being outrageous, nobody is forcing Apple to play. They're offering the right to use the iphone name which Cisco legally owns for a price. If the price is too high, Cisco keeps trucking with their iphone. That's a very different case than extortion. If Cisco clearly owns the rights, it would appear that Apple is very clearly in the wrong here and trying to use it's muscle and high profile and media hype following the phone introduction as leverage.J

 

[goonsquad]

I'm sure Microsoft fans find it very interesting to see Apple take the bully position against Cisco in this one.

Cisco is suing Apple, not the other way around. I have also read that part of Cisco's demands from Apple involved being allowed to incorporate Apple's technology into Cisco products. So it doesn't surprise me that Apple wouldn't play ball. Apple has been known to use it's muscle to protect it's trademarks in the past, even against much smaller companies. But I'm not sure I'd classify Apple as the bully in this one. Seems to me Cisco is trying to either extort an outrageous sum from Apple or to strong arm Apple into licensing it's technology to them (if there is indeed truth to the rumor, I couldn't find a link). Remember, Apple has been trying for years to work a deal with Cisco. Cisco's demands must be rediculous for Apple to take such a risk.

I'm sure you know a lot more than I do about the details goon but it looks to me like Apple is clearly playing the Bully role muscling Cisco here. Cisco only sued after Apple made splashes across the world introducing the iphone, right? What choice did they have there?Apple made this an issue refusing to yield to Cisco's registration.As far as Cisco's demands being outrageous, nobody is forcing Apple to play. They're offering the right to use the iphone name which Cisco legally owns for a price. If the price is too high, Cisco keeps trucking with their iphone. That's a very different case than extortion. If Cisco clearly owns the rights, it would appear that Apple is very clearly in the wrong here and trying to use it's muscle and high profile and media hype following the phone introduction as leverage.J

I guess I don't see a bully relationship here. I see two goliaths on equal ground going head-to-head. Apple clearly doesn't believe Cisco's trademark rights are as clear as Cisco thinks they are. I just have a hard time seeing Cisco as a victim here.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I guess I don't see a bully relationship here. I see two goliaths on equal ground going head-to-head. Apple clearly doesn't believe Cisco's trademark rights are as clear as Cisco thinks they are. I just have a hard time seeing Cisco as a victim here.

Really goon?Would you be ok if cisco came out with DVD creating software called imovie?J

 

[Challenge Everything]

I guess I don't see a bully relationship here. I see two goliaths on equal ground going head-to-head. Apple clearly doesn't believe Cisco's trademark rights are as clear as Cisco thinks they are. I just have a hard time seeing Cisco as a victim here.

Really goon?Would you be ok if cisco came out with DVD creating software called imovie?J

That is not an equal comparison. iMovie, in this case both of them, do the exact same thing. The Cisco iPhone from what I have read here and other sources uses the Internet exclusively as a phone. Also, the Cisco iPhone has been dubbed by others with no legal recourse as well as the name itself. The Apple iPhone is a portable unit that can surf the Internet but I dont know if it can be used in the same manner the Cisco iPhone can be used in. The Apple iPhone is a cellualar technology as well as MP3 player, planner, yada yada yada device. The two devices, to me, are clearly different in what they are presenting to the consumer. There are two similarities I see. Frist, the name and second they are both used for phone conversations... primarily. However, they are not used in the same manner.A thin line no doubt but I think neither company has a case to get X amount of dollars off the other one as of right now.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I guess I don't see a bully relationship here. I see two goliaths on equal ground going head-to-head. Apple clearly doesn't believe Cisco's trademark rights are as clear as Cisco thinks they are. I just have a hard time seeing Cisco as a victim here.

Really goon?Would you be ok if cisco came out with DVD creating software called imovie?J

That is not an equal comparison. iMovie, in this case both of them, do the exact same thing. The Cisco iPhone from what I have read here and other sources uses the Internet exclusively as a phone. Also, the Cisco iPhone has been dubbed by others with no legal recourse as well as the name itself. The Apple iPhone is a portable unit that can surf the Internet but I dont know if it can be used in the same manner the Cisco iPhone can be used in. The Apple iPhone is a cellualar technology as well as MP3 player, planner, yada yada yada device. The two devices, to me, are clearly different in what they are presenting to the consumer. There are two similarities I see. Frist, the name and second they are both used for phone conversations... primarily. However, they are not used in the same manner.A thin line no doubt but I think neither company has a case to get X amount of dollars off the other one as of right now.

I think it's much broader than that, CE.How far would Sony get if they introduced a home stereo entertainment unit called the Ipod? They could claim it was really a totally different device.J

 

[Challenge Everything]

I guess I don't see a bully relationship here. I see two goliaths on equal ground going head-to-head. Apple clearly doesn't believe Cisco's trademark rights are as clear as Cisco thinks they are. I just have a hard time seeing Cisco as a victim here.

Really goon?Would you be ok if cisco came out with DVD creating software called imovie?J

That is not an equal comparison. iMovie, in this case both of them, do the exact same thing. The Cisco iPhone from what I have read here and other sources uses the Internet exclusively as a phone. Also, the Cisco iPhone has been dubbed by others with no legal recourse as well as the name itself. The Apple iPhone is a portable unit that can surf the Internet but I dont know if it can be used in the same manner the Cisco iPhone can be used in. The Apple iPhone is a cellualar technology as well as MP3 player, planner, yada yada yada device. The two devices, to me, are clearly different in what they are presenting to the consumer. There are two similarities I see. Frist, the name and second they are both used for phone conversations... primarily. However, they are not used in the same manner.A thin line no doubt but I think neither company has a case to get X amount of dollars off the other one as of right now.

I think it's much broader than that, CE.How far would Sony get if they introduced a home stereo entertainment unit called the Ipod? They could claim it was really a totally different device.J

Probably not far but than again Apple probably trademarked the crap out of the iPod. I see where this is a headache but me personally see a difference so I would not be confused if Apple was able to maintain iPhone as the name. I think that is where the difference will be the biggest and probably where the courts will look first... any confusion at all? There appears to be some.

 

[goonsquad]

I guess I don't see a bully relationship here. I see two goliaths on equal ground going head-to-head. Apple clearly doesn't believe Cisco's trademark rights are as clear as Cisco thinks they are. I just have a hard time seeing Cisco as a victim here.

Really goon?Would you be ok if cisco came out with DVD creating software called imovie?J

That is not an equal comparison. iMovie, in this case both of them, do the exact same thing. The Cisco iPhone from what I have read here and other sources uses the Internet exclusively as a phone. Also, the Cisco iPhone has been dubbed by others with no legal recourse as well as the name itself. The Apple iPhone is a portable unit that can surf the Internet but I dont know if it can be used in the same manner the Cisco iPhone can be used in. The Apple iPhone is a cellualar technology as well as MP3 player, planner, yada yada yada device. The two devices, to me, are clearly different in what they are presenting to the consumer. There are two similarities I see. Frist, the name and second they are both used for phone conversations... primarily. However, they are not used in the same manner.A thin line no doubt but I think neither company has a case to get X amount of dollars off the other one as of right now.

I think it's much broader than that, CE.How far would Sony get if they introduced a home stereo entertainment unit called the Ipod? They could claim it was really a totally different device.J

Neither of these comparisons are accurate because Cisco has already let numerous other companies and products infringe on the iPhone name. Trademarks can become public if the rights hold doesn't defend the mark.

 

[jhib]

Looks like Apple decided to ask forgiveness rather than permission to use the name:

Link

Cisco hits Apple with lawsuit over iPhone

Last Update: 7:58 PM ET Jan 10, 2007



Several companies already use the name "iPhone" for Voice-over-Internet products, Kerris said.

"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."

Kerris added: "If Cisco wants to challenge us on it, we are very confident we would prevail."

I don't know a lot about trademarking, but I just don't see how Apple has a case here. If somebody came along and made an MP3 player called the "iPod", they'd be eaten up by Apple's pack of lawyers.

I think the bolded part may hurt Ciscos case.A quick google search found:

The iPhone company

Ciscos Linksys iPhone

Comwaves iPhone

iPhoneiPhone

I think Apples in a no-lose situation here. Technically the product hasn't launched yet. If the courts rule in favor of Cisco, they already have plenty of iMobile marketing and buzz prepped and may not have to turn over any profits from iPhone sales.

And meanwhile, Cisco is getting a lot of advertising right now for its own iPhone. It seems to me that even if Apple wins, as long as Cisco also gets to keep the name, the whole lawsuit is a win for Cisco as well.If they just accepted Apple's naming, the general public would look at them as trying to knock off Apple's phone. That still might happen, but not to the same extent.

 

[One]

Apple's product scale

Shuffle $79 Ultra small and simple

Nano $149-$249 Very small and thin

5G iPod $249-$349 Hard drive based, with large capacity

iPhone $499-$599 Phone and Internet features