iPhone Lawsuit Put On Hold For The Moment

SoulReaverDan writes "The recent lawsuit between Cisco and Apple on the iPhone trademark has taken an interesting turn. Cisco and Apple have agreed to a temporary truce, to allow Apple time to respond to the lawsuit (and, one assumes, avoid more legal fees). The article goes on to mention Apple's claim that several companies are using the iPhone name, which dovetails nicely with a great blog entry over on ZDNet. Alan Graham lays out a search of various websites, showing that not only is Cisco not the only one using the iPhone name, they're trying to use it just a little too hard. The image of the CIT300 (note this is NOT the CIT400 that Cisco is suing Apple for at all) on Amazon has the iPhone logo, but it lacks the logo on the Linksys website or on CDW's website."

Comments

Oh. My. God.

[Skadet]

Oh. My. God. Seriously, if I see one more damn iPhone story on here talking about the trademark issue, I'm going to buy an iPhone when it comes out, just so I can smash it to a million bits.

Nobody cares. Let me know when there's something *meaningful* to report.

Re:Oh. My. God.

[esobofh]

I dunno.. i'm a business analyst for a large telco that purchases millions of dollars in Cisco equipment. What does this tell me about Cisco when they are stooping so low as to photoshop an unused "trademark" into the picture as a last ditch effort to secure some lawsuit $$$?

This is extremely relevent to /. and it's users.

I'm sure this is not the first case of this either.

Re:Oh. My. God.

[vertinox]

I'm going to buy an iPhone when it comes out, just so I can smash it to a million bits.

Which one?

Re:Oh. My. God.

[defy god]

well, if you click on the second link provided, you'll see that it actually does matter if they use the trademark (within the 5 years of your own quote). they have to show continued use of said trademark during those 5 years. that's what the fuss is about photoshopping the logos in, trying to fake their use of it. if not, they have 6 months to file a type of ammendment stating they did use it (which Cisco has filed). funny thing about that filing, employees of Cisco signed under risk of perjury that the trademark was fully in use. if it is later found that it was not, then comes in the other part of your quote stating that it can "only be canceled on certain specified grounds".

the photoshop work is trying to rewrite history. they are essentially rebranding their products to support their current claims on the trademark.

Enough Already

[Scorchmon]

Just go ahead and change the name to the Apple Phone from The New AT&T formerly the iPhone from Cingular formerly the old AT&T.

What I want to know is...

[Zeek40]

When did Billy Corgan gain weight, change his name to Alan Graham and start writing a tech column?

Have we collectively gotten to this point?

[Gazzonyx]

Have we collectively gotten to the point where company branding is actually more important than the item in and of itself? I know that Coca Cola spends something like a billion dollars a year just to keep the name visible...but that's a company, not a product! How do we find ourselves in a society where product name is so important?

Is this the corporate version of the minefield? As if to say, "Don't step on our toes, or we'll go off on you!" Is it necessary that the name of a product be sole ownership of a single product by a single company? Surely we all know which product we are talking about in conversation via the context of use. The corporations aren't afraid that we'll get the products confused, or that a bad review for a product of the same name will keep us from buying their product.

Or is it, more likely, that this is the school-yard bully tactic? Cisco flexing its muscles to intimidate Apple in order to establish self-esteem? Perhaps they have a staff of lawyers and figure that they might as well use them. Then again, I'm sure that Cisco's resources aren't vast enough to just flex its power at will with nothing to gain...

Or perhaps, just perhaps, that's the idea. There is no such thing as negative publicity. I'm now only familiar with the Cisco iPhone due to this litigation! Sounds like free marketing. If you can hold a press release, do it - it's free product advertisement...if you can't do that, sue someone to generate publicity for a product knowing that if it doesn't go to trial, it'll be cheaper than a marketing campaign.

I'm a software development major, not a marketing major - please tell me if there is any validity to my musings, or if I'm just cynical.

Cisco already lost?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought Cisco already lost by not using the trademark for a 5 year period after purchasing NetGear (who did use the trademark). And isn't there a falsified affidavit - with a false claim of continuing use - submitted by a Cisco representative to the trademark office to extend that unused trademark? And did not Cisco submit a photograph of an already shipping product that did not go by the name iPhone to the trademark office as (false) proof of the trademark being used in commerce? Anyone else seen the picture of that sticker Cisco affixed to the outside shrinkwrap of the back of the non-iPhone product?

Methinks Cisco is delaying because Cisco does not want to lose too quickly.

Cisco iPhone name

[Intron]

"Cisco has owned the trademark for the name [iPhone] since 1996 - before Apple even started putting the letter "i" in front of its products - and thus has always had full rights to the name. As for why it took Cisco this long to make use of the name, the only possible explanations could be either it never reached an agreement for the sale of the trademark, or it chose to capitalize on the name now that it's the buzzword of the tech circles".

So, Cisco is using iPhone because products starting with "i" are hot, because Apple is selling the iPod. But Cisco is suing Apple because Apple is selling an iPhone.

Apple lawyers immediately trademarked the name "iRony".

Re:Cisco iPhone name

[Nutty_Irishman]

I think the Onion said it best:

"If they're not careful, [apple will] run into the same trouble with their upcoming computer model, the iBM."

Re:Marketing Strategy?

[BunnyClaws]

I've heard of a Cisco VoIP phone I have one sitting in front of me right now. I just never heard of a Cisco iPhone. For the record I do not do my shopping at Staples I go through Dunder-Mifflin for all of my office supply needs.

so what?

[oohshiny]

Yes, and Apple isn't using the trademark at all yet, since no iPhones are actually shipping.

So, even if Cisco just starts using the trademark now, they are still months ahead of Apple.

Of course, Apple knew that the iPhone trademark was claimed by Cisco since they were negotiating with them long before they released their iPhone. Looks to me like Apple is just trying to strong-arm the trademark away from Cisco by whatever means they can.

iHave One

[argent]

I have a Cisco phone sitting right here.

Says it right on the faceplate. Cisco IP Phone.

Whoops. Too many letters. Nevermind. :)

Re:they're already winning

[argent]

I find Apple's behavior in regards to iPhone to be cynical, calculating, and arrogant.

They're a corporation. Cynical, calculating, and arrogant is baked into their genes, lock, stock, and SEC regulations.

On the other hand, Cisco didn't even bother putting an iPhone label on their product WHILE they were in negotiations with Apple. What do you call that?

That is PRECISELY the point in question...

[argent]

So has Cisco, and apparently before the Apple announcement.

Isn't the point to the article is that Cisco was apparently not using the name before the Apple announcement.