Slashdot Mirror
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."
The trademark information on the US Patent and Trademark Office's site
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?
Better to call it "iPhone" and get your ass sued than call it "Zune" and paint it brown and squirt it everywhere.
Cisco is suing Apple over trademark infringement.
iPhowned!
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
This "iFirst Post" is first in the same sense that Apple was first to the name "iPhone."
http://www.comwave.net/CDN/iPhone/index.htm
The sad thing is that Apple was the reason why everyone started adding i to everything...if I was Jobs I'd just call it the Ipod Phone Edition and tell Cisco to bite it.
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.
That one's already been spoken for, too.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
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.
A legparnasom tele van angolnaval.
I'm down with iPP. You're down with iPP. Yea, you know Wii. Get down with iPP.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
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.
See what I've been reading.
Perhaps they figured it'd be cheaper to invalidate the trademark in court than fork over a ton of money forever like they did with the Beatles. It's worked once, and if it bleeds Cisco a few million for fun before they end up changing it to "Apple Phone" - all the better.
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.
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
Call it iCisco. Turnabout is fair play and I doubt they trademarked that specific name.
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.
there already is.
PhonePod is actually pretty good. Or even better, PodPhone. "Pod" is probably associated with Apple far more than the "i" is, and there are plenty of Apple products without an i in the name.
It's sort of late to change it now, but by no means too late... I can see Jobs selling the new name already: "And we here at Apple are thinking so far into the future, we've decided to drop the "i" that we innovated to the industry in 1998 since we're doing much more than "i" could possibly express. Boom, it's gone. Goodbye "i", welcome LifePod. Look, it's small and shiny!" *Audience hemorrhages from too much excitement*
It surprised me because it would be easier for Cisco to sue and make more money out of a settlement than to just give in. If they do this while iPhone is still on people's minds, Apple would offer a bigger settlement.
Hence my surprise.
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.
Mind you -- Apple was conducting negotiations when this was happening. If Apple did not trust Cisco, they would have signed the agreement before the final announcement. Obviously, Apple announcing this before the agreement signifies one of two things:
Apple trying to be nasty (like you said).
Or Apple believing in Cisco's good faith.
Since Apple was indeed having negotiations, and given Cisco's legal history before, I am inclined to go with the latter.
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.
As the folks who made the i prefix popular (iMac, iPod, iTunes etc.), it would be logical for Apple to use iPhone for their phone. Brand names create an impression of the company in the minds of people and hence they are valuable.
My two cents.
... Well as long as it's not "Mac Phone" it's ok by me.
"When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
Got it wrong there bud.
Apple was in talks to acquire rights to use the name, but they did not sign any contracts before they publicly released information and began using the iPhone trademark. The fault is squarely in Apple's court. Apple screwed up on this one, not Cisco.
Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
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.
Please help metamoderate.
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.
Internet. The original iMac (the first iThing) was touted as being easy to connect to the internet.
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
I googled the lawyer who filed this for Cisco/linksys, scroll down for her list of clients!
...the iCantAffordIt. :-P
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.
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.
How about the iPod/phone/internet device formerly know as iPhone?
iPhone is a terrible name anyway -- it's way too limiting. The iPod is not called the iMP3player. To call this new device (full disclosure: I think it's cool) anything that limits your cognitive map to the "phone" meme is a big loss in the long run.
Apple does not want to win any share of the phone market. They want to own the new market for handheld computers, which they are have been creating since 1993. Everyone has said for years that this will be the Next Big Thing whenever someone can get it right. Apple has a pretty good reputation in being the company that finally gets it right.
The best move from a brand identity perspective is to just call it the iPod Phone. Apple already owns the iPod market, so their best strategy is to grow that market, at the expense of the phone market.
Besides, everyone will call it the iPhone anyway.
Actually, the best name might just be -- iPod Communicator, for the Trek reference. I expect big business in a ringtone that make it play the communicator beepsound every time you turn it on.
Play on the "Pod" part of the word:
Most of the stuff on
Under trademark law, you can't trademark a generic term like "phone." You also can't just add an "i" in front of a generic word to make it a trademark. Apple thus has a good argument that the word "iPhone" can't be trademarked. This cuts both ways though since that means other people should be able to use the mark "iPhone" as well, and Apple doesn't want that. It will likely just pay tons of money to Cisco to use the mark.
iPhone wasn't really a very good name to begin with. I thought the obvious choice was iMobile, being that it's much more than just a phone.
"You see, I really wouldn't think Steve would make a dumb decision like not have the rights nailed down tight before MacWorld .."
Yeah, that would be like, what? Not having the correct date "nailed down" on stock option documents?
:wq
Of course, Apple will now trademark the terms "iRouter, iSwitch and iGateway" and will screw Cisco at some later date when Cisco develops their line of "Intelligent Devices"... Though it is Cisco, so it may be a while.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
iPwned!
Commentary from Mark Chandler, Cisco's SVP and General Counsel, on Apple's infringement of Cisco's iPhone trademark:
"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."
Remove the 'H', the 'E' add an 'R' and make it a fapping device!
Do not trust this signature.
True story: The database company Informix (which later got bought-out by IBM) had a product suite they needed a name for. At the time, they were trying to become "The Internet Company" so lots of their products started with lowercase "i" followed by a capitalized word (e.g. iSpy for a monitoring package). They announced a company-wide contest to name the new product. Any employee could submit a name for consideration, the top-ten would be voted on and the winner would be the name. I submitted the following: "iSoar" purely as a joke. It didn't make the top-ten, but it was on a list of "honorable mentions." I was never quite sure whether that meant that they got the joke or didn't.
(oh, and if it's hard to see why it's funny in print, it's because the pronunciation is "eyesore," which probably isn't a very good product name)
1 - Everyone's been expecting an iPhone from apple for years.
2 - Cisco has owned the iPhone trademark for years.
3 - Most people obviously didn't know this; Apple probably did.
4 - Apple ANNOUNCE iPhone as expected. Fanboys faint.
5 - Apple announce AppleTV and rebrand corporation
6 - Cisco Sue. Become 'Bad guys'
7 - Apple RELEASE device as ApplePhone, strengthen branding, please everyone. Except Cisco...
8 - Profit!
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.