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."
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.
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.
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
Yes
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
Actually no,
t -8722.html
w ww.ichat.com/
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
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
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.
there already is.
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.
I googled the lawyer who filed this for Cisco/linksys, scroll down for her list of clients!
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?
You worked for ichat?
/admin add.
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.
Play on the "Pod" part of the word:
Most of the stuff on
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.
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."