Apple and Cisco iPhone Negotiations

[retiarius]

Maybe because the introduction of the Cisco iPhone was a two-bit tactic?

[.... much common sense about Cisco's underhandedness ....]

It should be an interesting court case, although not necessarily a long one...

From a jury's perspective the sticker-on-the-box trick will appear
incredibly shabby, even if it were to be shown to be standard
trademark industry practice (is it?)

Also, aside from technicalities (like Apple owning the trademark
in all the rest of the English-speaking world), a defense based upon
"likelihood of confusion" seems like a slam-dunk for Apple.
Application of the "reasonable man" standard would show negligible
commonality when the Cisco CIT 200 is trotted out for comparison.

Also in Apple's favor is the time element. By the time a jury trial
happens, the iPhone will have been in the vernacular for years, with
much dilution only not in the relative merits of Cisco's obsolete offering
compared to Apple's innovation, but in the wholesale linguistic
effects which brought us generic scotch tape, kleenex, xerox copies,
and the frisbee.

 

[gnasher729]

No, because iFone is too close to iPhone.

You can't use that argument here. iPhone is very close to Phone, which is absolutely unprotectable.

 

[whooleytoo]

The Register has an article on the Apple-Cisco battle's European front. Apparently a German law firm filed a revocation application for Cisco's lack of use of the trademark, on the very day it 'expired'.

If Cisco lose the trademark, Apple are likely to be granted it - another company working as a proxy for Apple?