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."

Comments

Trademark info

[traindirector]

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?

Re:Trademark info

[The MAZZTer]

Appeal to the younger generation with the hip, new, stylin' "iFone"!

Re:Trademark info

[Kufat]

Perhaps they could call it iPodPhone without violating the trademark...the iPP could be the biggest thing since the Wii!

Re:Trademark info

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Well, when my kid goes Wii, he says "iPP".

Re:Trademark info

[randomiam]

That one is owned by CompuGlobalHyperMegaNet.

Re:Trademark info

[L7_]

Also something to note is that the original iPhone for which the trademark was granted was for a POTS phone complete with 2 phone jacks (see cnn archive, but its sloooow: http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9906/10/iphone.i dg/index.html). The Infogear trademark was for a telephone that is also a modem. I wonder how the affect of Apple's iPhone being a Mobile phone with a wifi connection will matter.

Another question would be *when* apple entered into talks with cisco to use the name. was this before or after cisco had already released thier own mobile phone with the iPhone name? hrrm.

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:Trademark info

[contrapunctus]

I'm irate. Oh wait, that a real word.

Re:Trademark info

[daviddennis]

It does seem a little suspicious, since if Apple was begging for the trademark "for years", Linksys had to be very aware of this fact.

I think Linksys introduced their iPhone to counteract an expected argument that the trademark was not in use. As I remember, it was a hasty rebranding of an already existing product line. It would be hard to argue that the name was well-established commercially.

I can't help but notice that the Apple iPhone itself has no visible marks on it, other than the Apple logo on the back. They could change the name from iPhone to jPhone or kPhone in seconds flat.

One thing for sure: The value of Linksys' trademark is virtually zero today. Whenever anyone says "iphone", Apple will be the reason why. And the beauty of that rather curious argument is that the public did it by so relentlessly using the name before launch. Apple itself didn't do a thing to destroy the trademark before launch day.

Apple may rename the product, if Linksys is asking for too much, but I'll bet that years from now people will still be talking about iPhone, even as they use their pMacs or MacPhones.

Trademarks are funny that way.

Finally, will this curious little squabble have any impact? I'm curious since I don't think the amount of money this dispute could yield would be worth the executive time it takes and the odd publicity brought to both companies.

Unless the publicity was the idea? It seems like this has single-handedly given the Linksys iPhone product a blaze of the kind of publicity you simply can't buy.

I do wonder now if this was a setup by Linksys and they didn't intend to give up the trademark without a loud and public fight, not for the money but so that someone, somewhere in the world would hear about their product and maybe buy a couple of them. It's not a bad strategy, especially since they seem like the underdogs ...

I mean, this case sounds like an example of the stubbornness of Steve, but what if it's an elaborate publicity stunt? Smart one, too.

I wonder how much publicity Tiger Direct got out of the bizarre Tiger vs Apple suit?

You see, I really wouldn't think Steve would make a dumb decision like not have the rights nailed down tight before MacWorld ... it just seems out of character, particularly with a device for which there are so many good names.

D

Don't Worry, It's OK

[abscissa]

Better to call it "iPhone" and get your ass sued than call it "Zune" and paint it brown and squirt it everywhere.

obligatory

[User 956]

Cisco is suing Apple over trademark infringement.

iPhowned!

Re:iFirst

[Jello B.]

This "iFirst Post" is first in the same sense that Apple was first to the name "iPhone."

Cisco was willing to negotiate

[alain94040]

From Cisco's web site yesterday: "SAN JOSE Calif., January 9, 2007 - Given Apple's numerous requests for permission to use Cisco's iPhone trademark over the past several years and our extensive discussions with them recently, it is our belief that with their announcement today, Apple intends to agree to the final document and public statement that were distributed to them last night and that addressed a few remaining items. We expect to receive a signed agreement today."

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.

Good Idea.

[symbolset]

I'm down with iPP. You're down with iPP. Yea, you know Wii. Get down with iPP.

Re:Good Idea.

[MSFanBoi2]

I think I just Wii'd myself.

Bravo for a honestly funny post.

Re:what about these guys?

[powerlord]

Actually, there was a whole dot-com phenomena of putting "i" in front of things too.

Yes ... which is where we got the iMac, iPod and iTunes. I wonder if Apple can make the case that people already associate the "i*" with THEM, either the 'iPhones' TradeMark should be considered diluted, or it should be assigned to them.

Re:what about these guys?

[puto]

Actually no,

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/t -8722.html

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://w ww.ichat.com/

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

WOW!

[HaeMaker]

I googled the lawyer who filed this for Cisco/linksys, scroll down for her list of clients!

Re:WOW!

[edflyerssn007]

Can we say Conflict of Interest?

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

-Ed

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:Don't think so

[Poltras]

remove the H and make it a gaming device. excellent

How about this:

[katsiris]

iPwned!

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 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."