Slashdot Mirror
Cisco Lost Rights to iPhone Trademark Last Year?
An anonymous reader writes "An investigation into the ongoing trademark dispute between Cisco and Apple over the name "iPhone" appears to show that Cisco does not own the mark as claimed in their recent lawsuit. This is based on publicly available information from the US Patent and Trademark office, as well as public reviews of Cisco products over the past year. The trademark was apparently abandoned in late 2005/early 2006 because Cisco was not using it."
iKnow that
--Steve
oops!
Cisco should just rebrand their iPhone product line and call them Apple Phones.
This guy's the limit!
Hmmm, this reminds me of those stories that come up from time to time about some big corporation forgetting to renew their domain names. If the outcome of the trademark dispute comes down to this, it will argue strongly for paying attention to the little details. In any case, you can bet corporate lawyers all over the U.S. are going to be checking their trademark papers this weekend!
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
Cisco on brink of losing iPhone name in Europe
I had to read TFA twice just to be sure that it was actually about the trademark in the US, not Europe.
This is definitely turning out to be a crazy situation. I agree with TFA that this is probably why Apple didn't sign the contract with Cisco after all.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
It hasn't ended yet. The "experts" listed in the blog aren't the ones making the ultimate legal decisions.
Apple - Sued by Apple records
Unix - Sued by Open Group
iPhone - Sued by Cisco
idiot - sued by you.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Or do the?
6 455
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=3
The existence of the iTimeMachine. Doc Brown's gonna shit.
This is yet another flagrant incursion into history and unforgivable mussing of the timeline by Steve Jobs, a monster whose rampage will never end until our hard-working scientists develop a weapon that can pierce his infamous Reality Distortion Field. Myself, I suggest realigning the Bussard collectors to emit anti-neutrinos.
These stories are free but worth money.
>idiot - sued by you.
iDiot
Err: 1D10T
I am pretty sure this means jack. Anybody claiming the use of a trademark receives protection with or without registration. Registration just gets you immediate action in the courts preventing apple from selling anything without hearing from apple. It also gives you the right to put TM next to the logo. If they were using it and had obvious intentions to reuse it then they are likely safe in the trademark and the registration, no matter what reason they are reusing it. The Europe one is more interesting as they have protocols to fight trademarks, but here it doesn't matter.
That is one reason why trademark squatting can somewhat work here such as that guy who owns 'stealth'. Paying is usually easier than fighting over here, and trying to get a judge to overturn a trademark may be impossible no matter how bad the situation.
That's a pity because I would like to be able to buy an iHandy next year when the Apple moblie phone comes out.
-- Cheers!
I did a trademark search on uspto.gov, and it appeared to me that Cisco's iPhone trademark is listed as "LIVE", not "DEAD". IANAL, 'tis true. But we are talking about a ZDNet story, so I'm auto-skeptical.
From Engadget:
I guess that all fell through. Ah well, now we've just got more Apple rumours. Let's hope this all ends quickly so we can stop guessing about what might happen.
.... promote "Iphone" which is not really my phone but his phone as not third part apps will be allowed.
Can I Make a Beowulf Cluster of those iPhones ?
Would that make it an iBeowulf Cluster, or a Beowulf iCluster? Damn, I'm so confused! Who do we sue next?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Can you point me to some of the phones with those features, specifically a phone with an interface even close to what the iPhone has? I love Japanese technology, but I hadn't really seen anything quite like it before.
To successfully defend a trademark, you have to show you've been consistently using it for years. Cisco couldn't do that - they had to stick a sticker on the outside of a shrink-wrap of another package. Do you not think if they actually *had* a product called the iPhone, they'd have taken a photo of that ?
Score one for the fruit company...
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
Laws should be applied equally to all, regardless of who it is. Politicians. Cops. Firemen. Doctors. Corporations. Blacks. Whites. etc.
The trademark laws are fair here. Sticking a label onto shrinkwrap is not a) showing use for the past 5 years CONTINUOUSLY as the law requires, b) shows any evidence this was "use" of a trademark. Use being something the public saw when purchasing the product; they didn't.
Indeed, it seems misleading, even fraudulent, what Cisco did; they pretended that this was evidence of continuous use, public use? Please. I never heard of iphone until December and I've been looking at VOIP gear off and on for the past 6 months.
Fanboys? Sure. I used to be a Mac fanboy, back in the 68k and early PPC days. No longer. I (horrible, I know) like XP more than I like MacOS, although I dislike MS more than Apple. I have no plans to buy the crippled Apple phone/iphone either, unless Cingular has some whopping cheap plans (like $60 a month for 1000+ minutes and unlimited EDGE).
If this checks out, Youch! Everyone was wondering what was behind Apple so brazenly using the iPhone trademark. Cringely wrote a whole piece on it http://pbs.org/cringely but no one guessed something as simple as this!
Memo to self: Don't play Poker with Steve Jobs.
I RTFA and thought the commentary looked familiar: http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=216560&c id=17578608
Maybe this is why apple didn't come out with an iPhone before. They were waiting to see if they would let the trademark lapse.
In the words of bugs bunny: How now brown cow?
The fickle commentaries crack me up. First it was WTF was Apple thinking? Then it was Cisco is in the right, Apple is wrong / evil / brazen. How stupid could they be. They're gonna have to rename it to @Phone. Blah blah blah.
Did anyone honestly think Apple would name their product the iPhone, full well knowing that Cisco had the trademark unless they were completely confident that it was both A) worth the legal headache and B) that they have a very good case and therefor chance of triumphing in this dispute?
Kiteboarding Gear Mention slashdot and get 10% off!
when I read your post my immediate digg-like fanboy reaction was to say, "For shame! Who is Jay Behmke that he can steal quotes from the web and use it as his own?!"
Then I look a look at the /. poster's ID number:
(Score:5, Informative)
by jmbehmke1 (1050394) Alter Relationship on Friday January 12, @02:23PM (#17578608)
oh.
Then I proceeded to wipe the egg that was on my face. The internet has made me a little too on edge. :-(
The current model Treos, apparently. Only they actually have a thumb-pad, so you don't need that "I can't even get it right in the demo" virtual keyboard.
iPhone is now a featured product on Cisco's Website. I don't know if it was there before the iPhone was announced or before this trademark non-usage news came out, but surely it's related with Apple's iPhone.
The problem is that the product that bore the "iPhone" label in the declaration (Linksys CIT200) hadn't ever been associated with that name, so it seems to me that the sticker was an attempt to pull a fast one on the USPTO by representing the trademark as being actively used when in fact it wasn't and hadn't been for six years. The CIT200 was finally rebranded "iPhone" last month, but that was seven months after the declaration was filed and more than a year after the declaration had originally been due, and almost certainly after Cisco was aware of Apple's intentions.
IMHO Cisco fumbled badly, and they're desperately trying to recover.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
It's running OS X isn't it? Why don't they just call it the MacPhone and be done with it. It could come with a tartan case, and have bagpipe ringtones.
Cisco regiters trademark.
Cisco files Delcaration of Use, with "under penalty of perjury" affidavit stating they are using the name.
Now it sounds like everything will hinge on the following:
AT a former FA:
2001 - 2006: Cisco continues servicing and providing technical support for the iPhone
So internal documentation may/probably shows continuous use of iPhone in regards to the support of an existing product.
Either
(A) the trademark is shown to be valid, as internal documents support the continued use of the trademark for support purposes OR
(B) they don't have the documentation, or it is deemed invalid, in which case whomever signed the extension is clearly guilty of perjury and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
In my opinion, you can't have it both ways - the tradmark is valid and the signer is ok, or the trademark is invalid and the signer goes to jail. There is no middle ground.
Now, in other thoughts on the matter:
(1) If the trademark is up for grabs, and Cisco has an iPhone product on the market which pre-dates the Apple cellular product, don't they still have "dibs" on the name? Can't they re-file for the trademark, and presumably be first in line because of an actual shipping product?
(2) Can Chevy come out with their new "Fairlane" model next year, since Ford clearly is not producing a Fairlane and haven't for more than 7 years? If Ford claims to keep it by offering parts and service for the Fairlane, wouldn't that bolster the case For Cisco, which has supported "their" iPhone product with (at least) service for the last 6 years?
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
The writer makes an excellent case, but I can't help but think about how is all under the authority of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Anyone of us can see that they just slapped an "iPhone" sticker on another product, but with all of the stories of how incompetent the USPTO is with granting patents without much thought as to its authenticity, who thinks that practice doesn't carry over into their dealing with trademarks? If they handle their handling of trademarks the same way they do patents, I can easily see Cisco having been successfully granted an extension on the trademark and it standing up in court.
I own a Treo 650. It's not even close to what the iPhone is doing interface-wise. I also own a P990, which is about as far from the iPhone (or from the Treo, for that matter) as Windows 3.11 is from Mac OS X.
Y'know, seeing as how it's an Apple product, they can rebrand the whole of their catalog (usher in the new era of Apple Inc). That way you can own aMac and aPhone and aServer with aWirelessLAN. Of course, you could also get aLife...
-BA
treos? wow. never heard of that. how would you translate that from the japanese?
in case you didn't notice, the parent was asking about japanese technology that is so advanced that it beats out the current stock here in america and you tell us to look at the current stock that's here in america? well, you've got me beat...
of course, we're arguing over the merits of a product that does not yet exist on the market yet... this is like saying how much better halo 3 is than gears of war. i'm sure it will be better, but i'll reserve my judgements until it's in my hands.
we are, however, waiting to hear what in japan is similar... really. i know they sell things in asia that never make it to the U.S. or only make it here after extended delays, but it's not impossible to get your hands on such things, or at least read about them. I have yet to hear of a device like the iPhone with all of its features. I'd love to see one. I think the iPhone looks awesome but agree with those who criticize it. I don't like that they've aligned themselves with a big telco. I was hoping they'd help blow the lid off of the current lockdown they have on technology. It's a step in the right direction, but not quite there yet. I'm sure we'll be seeing unlocked versions soon after it's released, though. If you've got something light years ahead of the iPhone in Japan already, though, please tell me. I'll pay the extra shipping to get my hands on that instead.
Lawyers are hired guns, but they are not the gunmen, their clients are. When someone walks into a lawyer's office with a complaint (or brings one to the lawyers on staff, if it's a big company), they will look to see if there is ANY amount of legal merit and, if so, begin to work on the case. Their job isn't to filter cases by how ridiculous they are, it's to filter cases without any legal merit. If you were Cisco, wouldn't you at least TRY to save your trademark? I think so.
Did I fall asleep and miss something ?
Why is Apple, the world's largest DRM company which loves to use it's lawyers to crush and close any blog which mentions it's upcoming product, now suddenly the "good guys" ?
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Because the youngins would start to wonder what an Intosh is.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
even if Apple knew they'd lose, the would get the buzz from the obvious "IPhone" for 6 months until the real thing comes out -- with the added lawsuit and "will they lose the name" buzz to keep it on front pages -- then they could rebrand it the Apple Phone or the iTunes Phone or whatever and get even MORE buzz as they get the release publicity plus the "Apple had to rebrand their phone" publicity that would of course also describe the phone.
Sort of like the old saying, "I don't care what you print about me in your newspaper as long as you spell my name right". (Or something like that.)
This is just some bloggers, not a legal opinion, even if it's from a lawyer.
Here's a demonstration that Cisco was continuously using the trademark: the support web site for the iPhone, as archived at archive.org. "With InfoGear recently being acquired by Cisco Systems, there is currently no change to your iPhone coverage. We hope you continue to enjoy using your iPhone, and we thank you for your business. So, even if Cisco wasn't selling new units, they were still supporting the old ones. That page has been archived every year since 2000, so that's a form of continuous use.
There's an active user base. The University of Florida went iPhone. There's a description of their configuration here. They have a VoIP infrastructure with three Cisco CallManagers, two Cisco 6608 VoIP gateways, a Cisco Unity voice mail system, and many Cisco IP telephones, some of which are iPhone units, on desktops. The University of Pennsylvania also went iPhone. There are probably corporate installations too, but they tend not to publish their phone instructions on the public web. Those installations have to be supported, which is something Cisco does, and gets paid for. Cisco is in the network infrastructure business, after all.
As long as there's support, and support-related revenue, the trademark is clearly in use.
ok, i'm a begrudgingly admitted macboi, and *i'm* tired of hearing about the iphone debate. it's like arguing the existence of god (or something) -- what does it matter?
mr c
"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it." - R. Feynman
1. Unclear, unjustified war in a sovereign nation - Check.
2. National obsession with dance at the expense of expanded consciousness - Check.
3. Horrific fashion - Check.
4. Youth culture co-opted by advertising - Check.
5. Government stomping all over personal liberty - Check.
Sorry, dude, you're too late. The Seventies are back in force.
In fact, in the UIS at least you can use "TM" from when you begin the claim, you can use "R" once it's actually registered.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
This would explain why the "iPhone" by Cisco came out a week before Apple's iPhone. This would also explain why it's such a lame, slapped-together design.
If it's true, then you can see why trademarks lapse if not used or enforced. Why, otherwise, companies could buy up a bunch of trademarks, or think up obvious ones, and sue in perpetuity. Not that that's what's happening here, of course. Kaff, kaff.
Cisco has a good reputation for quality on the corporate (premium) market, and they also are worshipped by a certain kind of business school graduate, but just look at that mess of a website, and I'd say their corporate culture sucks hard.
I certainly do hope to see the iPhone become a better platform for third party apps eventually, but even with nothing else, I can see ditching my Treo when it comes out. And I'm hoping that the few third party apps I do use on the Treo do make their way to the iPhone, one way or the other..... would love to have Salling Clicker on it, for example.
Actually, the other big thing I use my Treo for is as a host for TomTom navigator, but I could probably see giving that up to and just getting a physical TomTom device instead.
Irrelevant. Anyone who thinks that court cases are won because something does or does not satisfy certain conditions laid down in legal statutes is very naive. All that matters is how much each party has to spend on lawyers to convince a judge. Once convinced, the judge will then write up his or her decision with a post hoc rationalization to make it appear that the decision followed from rules. And so it goes.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Expect a letter from Apple's lawyers over your unauthorized use of their trademarks "iSuggest" and "iIn".
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
> Blazer just stinks, and I've practically given up on even bothering to use real websites with it, instead using WAP versions of sites when I can.
Opera Mini is your friend.
Absit Invidia
Because it would seem from the whois information that the record for the domain "iphone.org" was created on 16 Dec 1999, and since that time, has pointed directly to the Apple WWW site. Doesn't that qualify as a "continuous usage"? Wouldn't that make Apple, Inc. (nee Computer) next in line for the registration rather than Ocean Telecom? The existance of "iphone.org" was widely reported in the press back when.
The other question I have is whether or not an invalidity of the trademark registration necessarily invalidates a trademark. After all, isn't it a well-known principle of IP law that a trademark need not necessarily be registered to be valid, as long as the trademark holder can show prior and continous usage of the same? Also, remember that trademarks are generally only held to be valid within a certain sphere. The same word can function as a trademark for completely different concerns in dissimilar market spaces.
Whatever the outcome of this dispute, Steve Jobs pulled a brilliant marketing stunt by introducing the product as the iPhone. Even if Cisco eventually retains the trademark registration, the word iPhone is now indelibly imprinted on the public's mind as the name of Apple's new cell phone (not that it wasn't already, but this cemented it). As for myself, I never even heard of Cisco's so-called product until they apparently rushed it to market because of all the hype surrounding what was believed to be the impending release of the Apple product.
Let's face it, Cisco is a pretty lame company, and they always have been. Those of us who were installing wide-area networking routers in the early-mid 1990's will know what I mean.
Ask yourself: might someone buy an Apple iPhone under the mistaken belief that they are buying a Cisco iPhone, and thereby get fooled, defrauded, and disappointed? Is Apple piggybacking on the reputation and publicity that Cisco built up?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
A glance at trademark laws makes this appear a simple case if you consider continuous use.
They did not use the mark continuously. So, no go Cisco.
IANAL but... someone wrote on slashdot (and I'm trying to find it) who was a lawyer concerning this exact case. The facts I remember were that yes Cisco missed out on the trademark re-registration (or whatever it's called) last year, but those who do are given a 6 month grace period past that point in which to submit their application. Cisco did this approximately 2 months later (2 months into the 6 month period)
Some other thing as well about the use of the trademark where Cisco submitted box art for an upcoming product (possible fraudulent?)
I'm not too on-to-it with the facts. Still trying to find the source comment...
EUREKA! I've got it. Thanks jmbehmke1 for all the info!
My Mommy says smoking kills. Oh, is your Mommy a doctor? No. A scientific researcher of some kind? No. Well then sh
Shouldn't that be "iLove happy endings"?
Oh wait, you mean Firemen, not Fremen. I was kinda wondering how do laws apply to fictional nomadic people living on a desert planet.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
I personally think the courts should go after them for that fraud. Before I reached these posts, I had just commented on the very subject.
What?
Okay, that's not what I said. Read what I wrote: "It's not even close to what the iPhone is doing interface-wise". The Treo probably has more features than the iPhone. It does just about everything the iPhone does, and more. The iPhone isn't interesting because of its feature set, but because of the interface which finally seems to put everything together in a way that doesn't feel like it was assembled using duct tape.
I mean, the Treo 650's phone part is a Palm application, not an integral part of the Treo. There's not even preemptive multitasking. Most apps lose their state as soon as you leave them. There's very little integration between apps, and so on.
Yes, the Treo does more than the iPhone. But the iPhone finally seems to do the things it does well and in an integrated manner.
even have the most fleeting suspicion that this whole thing is maybe, possibly a not so secretive ad campaign? Could it be, dare I say it, a giant Troll? Well, all I can say (ok, maybe not ALL) is, good job, guys. Keep up the good work. You can expect a nice bonus next Christmas. In fact, you all look a bit tired. Why don't you take a couple of weeks off? I hear the snow is good in Colorado. The interns can handle it from here.
What?
Bingo... yes they use DRM at the bequest of the labels, who are now trying to offer a product without so as to weaken iTunes and allow them to charge more... get with it already...
The iPhone reminded me of a newer and improved (in certain areas and specs) NeoNode, which was launched in July of 2004. Of course it's dated now, but it had what many consider to be "innovative" features then. Such considerations are, of course, relative. Of course, this system is open rather than closed.
negotiations that took place between Nintendo and MGM, over the use of King Kong. Turns out Nintendo dropped a bomb at the end of that one with by announcing they weren't paying, then or ever, because MGM didn't own the rights to King Kong anyway! Woops.
Also related to this, and similarly amusing:
o tion_C2&childpagename=US%2FLayout&cid=116563331864 0&pagename=Linksys%2FCommon%2FVisitorWrapper
http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Satellite?c=L_Prom
The above page at Linksys has links at "where to buy" for Amazon... None of the nine products that come up use the word iPhone! So, Cisco is pimping their minion Linksys, and Linksys is pimping their "iPhone", but they aren't selling a product that has "iPhone" anywhere in its name and doesn't appear on any of the product shots -- except for the user photo linked to in the parent post. When did the word 'iPhone' first appear on a shipped Linksys product? Can anyone that's actually bought one give me a date? Is the December user-photo a forgery?
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
...Or Jobs'll rub out your great-grandfather!
These stories are free but worth money.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
See here.
It's Maltacom's voice over broadband service.
SCIREV.NET - fanfics,reviews & more
I gave up saying this months ago.
It still makes me cringe when someone says "Vista is crippled with DRM" when you can't even boot OSX on a computer that Apple didn't make. Not to mention FairPlay, which I was told doesn't count as DRM because "you can remove it easily".
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
Even close? Sure, I'd be delighted:
http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/01/11/iphone-an d-lg-ke850-separated-at-birth/
The url alone says it all - there's hardly even any need to click it. I think my point (although clearly not one grasped by the aforementioned fanboys who modded me a troll) is that it just beggars belief that someone can stand in front of an audience (albeit comprised of similar Apple worshipping fanatics) and claim that what their company is delivering is 5 years ahead of the competition without being laughed off the stage.
I own a Mac Pro and an iPod. Apple make some sweet products. But this phone is the greatest example of style over substance that they've produced yet.