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."

28 of 162 comments (clear)

  1. Old News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    iKnow that

    --Steve

    1. Re:Old News by MeanderingMind · · Score: 5, Interesting
      RTFA, a front company for Apple is next in line.

      If Apple can prove in federal court that the Declaration of Use contained misstatements of fact, i.e. that there was no continuous use, then Cisco's registration can be canceled. This could clear the way for the next company in line for the iPhone trademark, Ocean Telecom Services LLC (widely regarded as a front company for Apple). It could also explain why Apple decided not to sign the agreement Cisco proposed.
      --
      Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
  2. simple solution by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 5, Funny

    Cisco should just rebrand their iPhone product line and call them Apple Phones.

    --
    This guy's the limit!
    1. Re:simple solution by Megane · · Score: 4, Funny

      I like "Cisc-o-Fone" myself. It's got a retro sound to it. "Disco Stu! Loves his Cisc-o-Fone!"

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    2. Re:simple solution by TomHandy · · Score: 3, Funny

      I have a hard time believing that he would ever make an obvious promotional statement like that. Don't you know that Disco Stu doesn't advertise?

  3. Those Little Details by blueZhift · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!

    1. Re:Those Little Details by Skater · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Or, better yet, of Universal's lawsuits over the game "Donkey Kong" when it first came out - I saw someone mention it on /. the other day. If you're not familiar with the story, it's a pretty good read. Briefly, Universal sued on the grounds that Donkey Kong was a rip off of King Kong, and lost in part because they'd argued in another recent case that King Kong was a public domain character.

    2. Re:Those Little Details by kripkenstein · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      Not at all. If TFA is right, this has nothing to do with 'little details'. The big details are that Cisco had no product called 'iPhone' for years, and recently just stuck a sticker on a picture of an existing product, rebranding it 'iPhone', when renewing the trademark, when no such branding existed in the real world.

    3. Re:Those Little Details by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Not at all. If TFA is right, this has nothing to do with 'little details'. The big details are that Cisco had no product called 'iPhone' for years, and recently just stuck a sticker on a picture of an existing product, rebranding it 'iPhone', when renewing the trademark, when no such branding existed in the real world.

      I believe that you and TFA are right, Cisco has not used the trademark in marketing their VOIP web/phone system. I'm looking at the box from one (ca. 2002) right now, and it is branded "Cisco IP Phone". Nowhere in the box, on the product or in the manual was it referred to as an "iPhone", "IPhone", "I Phone" or "I-Phone".

      For that matter, I've seen the instruments placed on TV shows (e.g. "West Wing") and never seen any "iPhone" branding you would expect for a product placement on TV. Looks like they registered it and blew it off.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    4. Re:Those Little Details by nine-times · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Indeed, it appears less as though Cisco accidently let a valuable trademark lapse, and more like Cisco is attempting to hold onto a trademark they've never used and have no intention of using, for the sole purpose of using it as leverage against Apple. No one has any brand association with the name "iPhone" to any product other than the Apple iPhone anyway.

  4. In Europe too! by Megane · · Score: 5, Informative

    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; }
  5. He's not a fan boy, but not a lawyer either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:He's not a fan boy, but not a lawyer either by MeanderingMind · · Score: 4, Informative

      Cisco is registered for the trademark, that much is certain.

      The issue here is whether or not their registration can be revoked due to failure to use the trademark. The article mentions that a registered trademark should be in continual use throughout the registration. As Cisco had no "iPhone" product until late in the grace period there seems to be a good case for the registration to be revoked.

      Now, as you say they may still be protected, but this opens the door still for Apple to register the trademark. I can hardly think that Cisco will be able to defend a trademark that was revoked against someone else who holds the registration.

      --
      Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
  6. Re:USPTO website by wes33 · · Score: 4, Informative

    TFA goes into and explains why it still shows as 'live' - this is a legal issue not a simple "is it in the registry" issue.

  7. You're missing the point by Space+cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
  8. Re:I dunno... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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).

  9. So that's it! by BillGatesLoveChild · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  10. zdnet article quotes /.er.... by nblender · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I RTFA and thought the commentary looked familiar: http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=216560&c id=17578608

  11. My money is on Apple winning this one. by Fahrvergnuugen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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!
  12. Featured iPhone by trofer · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Featured iPhone by nacturation · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Here's the direct link to the iPhone on Amazon image:

            http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-images/by-author /A675KDVLCPUZV

      This is a customer uploaded image uploaded by one "Ben Boyle" on December 18, 2006. The main product image has no such iPhone shown:

            http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/B000JI5L02

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  13. Re:I dunno... by NormalVisual · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  14. Why aPhone? by Bright+Apollo · · Score: 5, Funny

    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

  15. Here's proof of continuous use by Cisco by Animats · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Here's proof of continuous use by Cisco by palmer64s · · Score: 5, Informative

      Nope. A trademark by definition indicates source of origin. Support does not count, because no product or service is being originated by the company under the trademark. This is especially true in this case, since the iPhone was actually produced by another company, InfoGear. Cisco has apparently never produced an iPhone during the period in which they registered that trademark.

  16. Too Late Buddy by thedbp · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  17. TM vs. R by jpellino · · Score: 3, Informative

    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."
  18. Re:I dunno... by TomHandy · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Hey, don't get me wrong, I like my Treo 650 too; and mostly for the third party stuff, like Salling Clicker (which I also use to control ZoomPlayer and iTunes remotely on my PC). But the OS has been stagnating for years, and the UI of a lot of the apps are kind of clunky. For a lot of what I do ultimately use my Treo for, it is kind of a pain in the ass. I.e. web browsing; 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. From what I've seen of the iPhone demonstrations, Apple has really moved things forward interface wise.

    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.