Cisco Suing Apple For iPhone Trademark Infringement

EricNau said:
Was this possibly a publicity stunt by cisco to get free advertising for their iPhone (because no doubt, this story will be all over the news).
Click to expand...
I think Cisco using the name "iPhone" in the first place was a publicity stunt.

MrSmith said:
It's not like it's an internet device anyway.
Click to expand...
It very specifically is an internet device. Or did you not see the keynote. :)

I don't care either way if it's the iPhone, they could call it the Mac Phone or Phone just as easily, although then it wouldn't remind people that it's also an iPod.
 
I really think the "i" names are getting old. why not start a new trend and, like the appletv, call it the applephone.
 
Publicity stunt?

The extra media coverage might help pay for the settlement?

Excellent entertainment value. What happens next? Tune in for the next exciting installment!

Perhaps Apple could argue that the iPhone name was a term in common usage for a product people presumed Apple was developing? I wonder how far back the term iPhone goes in connection to Apple?
 
Cisco owns the name IN THE US. Apple owns it most everywhere else.

So, Cisco's going to have a difficult time selling their "iPhone" in Japan or Europe, for example. Apple can immediately file a response injunction to stop all sales of Cisco's product overseas.

anyway, this story is overblown. not an issue. like a lot of MacRumors posts.
 
Well looking at the Apple iPhone (the fact you have to say 'Apple' iPhone and not just iPhone is why Cisco will most likely be suing and will probably win at least for US markets) product photos it doesn't have any reference to 'iPhone' on it so branding it limited to advertising and packaging.

Apple must have known about this, I can only assume when Cisco announced the shipping iPhone it took Apple completely by surprise. Steve made a big thing about Apple patenting the technology behind the device so I find it so odd they didn't copyright the name long before now (in the US)!

I was disappointed by the keynote yesterday, great technology and design for the device but immensely slack when it comes to actually getting it to the market and naming it. I can understand why they left all computer based announcements so as not to have them overshadowed but Apple TV got the rough end of the deal. The keynote yesterday should have stuck to Mac related items including Apple TV. If ever there was reason for an Apple Special Event (most of which to date should have been tackled under the trade's description act!) it was the iPhone or whatever it gets called. I can't see Apple wanting to back down on this not after the hugely inflated introduction they gave it yesterday but what can they do? The writing was on the wall when Cisco released the product and they stood by did nothing then took the heavy handed approach in typical Apple style 'If we do what we want to anyway the other side will back down or we'll drag it through the courts'. Bottom line - there are better names then iPhone! The 'i' branding is getting old and has rather lost it's meaning and marketing appeal. The iPod will continue but other than that only the iMac remains on the hardware front and as a concept that has changed hugely.
 
Were Apple the first company to come out with a 'iProduct' ?

if so, then other companies should leave alone IMO
 
TheAnswer said:
What would be the legal implications, say if Cisco had the trademark and no product, then developed the product solely after Apple came to them?

Also be interesting to see if Apple started getting trademarks overseas to avoid the rumor mill and Cisco found out and beat them to the punch at the trademark office in the US?
Click to expand...

Cisco released the iPhone last month and trademarked iPhone in 1999. Try again.

TheAnswer said:
Cisco's strong hand is "i" is for internet Phone and prior product. Apple's strong hand is "we invented "i" is for internet" and international trademarks. Still, stupid move by Apple not to line up all the ducks before pulling the shotgun.

Maybe they'll just rebrand it Phone (that's apple symbol Phone for you Bootcamp and PC viewers).
Click to expand...


There have been iWhatevers out before Apple started using i.... Try again.
 
I think the iThing is getting old too.

They'll buy the name though after reading that Guardian report.
 
Rocketman said:
This is not a cut and dried claim by Cisco.
Click to expand...
I agree with that entirely, but Apple would have done better in settling this before they showed their hand. Now Cisco knows exactly what Apple wants to use the trademark for and how big the market they expect for the device etc...

It's certainly not unprecedented for companies to use other people's trademarks, a case in point is Apple's Mighty Mouse, which includes
Mighty Mouse © Viacom International Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Click to expand...
at the bottom of its webpage.

B
 
I'm not too good with coming up with names, but....

Well if the negotiations don't workout and Apple is forced to change the name, I will submit the name I like.

pPod

Okay I'm kidding. May I have some jello now? :p
 
howard said:
I really think the "i" names are getting old. why not start a new trend and, like the appletv, call it the applephone.
Click to expand...

I haven't read the entire thread entirely, but why not just put that Apple logo + phone at the end like they do with Apple TV, and you have naming continuity. They had naming continuity with their "i" names, but since they're moving away from that, they should do so and stick with it.
 
Not sure what to think of this. One one hand, there's always some @$$4073 lawyer ready to put the brakes on true innovation and meaningful progress like we saw yesterday. But on the other hand, Apple itself has been very aggressively defending any and all possible trademark violations for years (remember iPodLounge.com?) I sure hope Steve got something in writing from the dour, humorless CEO of Cisco prior to yesterday's big announcement.

PS -- Come to think of it, there's an alternative long-distance company here in Canada that's been using the "iPhone" slogan in their advertising for years. What's up with that???
 
Rocketman said:
Nope.

A trademark has to do whith public perception. While Cisco has a registered trademark for iPhone in ONE jurisdiction worldwide, Apple has it in many others.

Furthermore PUBLIC perception of the name of Apple's cellphone product BEFORE the announcement was that it would be called "iPhone."

This is not a cut and dried claim by Cisco.

One could claim there is a "Cisco iPhone" and also an "Apple iPhone", both of which are quite different and differentiated in the market.

This is a negotiation tactic by both sides. Obviously Cisco did something akin to domain name squatting on this issue.

Fine.

Just ask less and settle it.

Rocketman
Click to expand...

Further muddying the waters is Apple owning the iphone.org domain for years.
 
I've got an idea...

Say they combine the two names "iPod" and "iPhone" into "iPone", and then get this... Condense it to "iPwn"! (Pronounced "eye-pown") (in joke & bad joke)

Well Apple Inc. has the rights to iPhone in other countries. I'm not a lawyer, but surely Apple could get around it somehow, especially as the products are being made outside of the US and imported.

If not, then you Americans might get a "special" version that either Apple pays royalties on, or with a little "?" replacing the "i".

On the other hand, Apple could just send Cisco some hired goons or parcel bombs.
 
Not necessarily a "trademark"

Trademarks do not operate like patents. Federal registration of a mark does not necessarily make it a trademark. It only creates a presumption with certain advantages in litigation (such as burden of evidence shifting). Ultimately, it comes down to consumer good will and recognition.

Also, on Apple TV, isn't it just a matter of time for Apple to sell LCD televisions with Apple TV capabilities built in?
 
apfhex said:
It very specifically is an internet device. Or did you not see the keynote. :)
Click to expand...
Er, no... I checked out the Apple homepage, though :) . OK. What I'm trying to say is that I know it connects to the Internet for maps, web pages and mail (2 of which existing phones already do, though not as elegantly) but I don't think (IMO) people are going to buy it for its Internet capabilities. My eyes are bad enough without squinting at a small screen like that. Now ease of use... that's a different matter. I'll have one.
 
Abstract said:
I have only read the 1st page of this thread, but I found it strange that Apple is moving away from the "i" names, and yet they wanted to name this phone "iPhone".

Why not just call it Apple Phone to go along with their new, non-Mac product, "Apple TV"? Just put that Apple logo + phone at the end like they do with Apple TV, and you have continuity.
Click to expand...


Prob because its pretty much a universal name at this point. Anyone who has talked about a Apple based phone has pretty much called in iPhone. That's not to say they couldn't change it but realistically what's in a name? At minimum you want something that is easy to say. One word preferably. Say it out loud. iPhone vs. iPod Phone or Apple Phone. iPhone is smaller, more compact, and easier to use in a conversation.
Someone at Apple needs to be fired for not having this completed months ago. $50 says its comes down to Apple..Check that Jobs's insane need for secrecy and the fear that someone at Cisco would leak that they were in negotiations for the name. :rolleyes:


Quite honestly it makes me somewhat nauseated to see such blind devotion to Apple. Cisco has had the trademark for iPhone for a LONG time. This is 120% Apple's fault and they deserve to get slapped around for this.


I stand corrected. From Ars...


Cisco has sued Apple over the iPhone name, a day after media reports suggested that Apple was licensing the name from the networking giant. Cisco acquired the trademark "iPhone" in 2000 from InfoGear Technology (which itself filed in 1996), and was apparently unable to reach an agreement with Apple. It now appears as though Cisco is going to force Apple's hand.
Click to expand...
 
well i'm not surprized, but for some reason i thought apple already trademarkted the name years ago.....? anyways, i hope they work it out somehow....
 
TheAnswer said:
Cisco's strong hand is "i" is for internet Phone and prior product. Apple's strong hand is "we invented "i" is for internet" and international trademarks. Still, stupid move by Apple not to line up all the ducks before pulling the shotgun.

Maybe they'll just rebrand it Phone (that's apple symbol Phone for you Bootcamp and PC viewers).
Click to expand...

Especially when it doesn't hit the street for another six months. This is one of those times when reality and the reality distortion field don't exactly line up.
 
A perfect opportunity to rebrand it what it should be called: "iPod phone". This would be consistent with "iPod shuffle" and "iPod nano". Makes sense even from an historic point of view, witness the short-lived "iPod photo" brand name, which eventually became "iPod" once photo capabilities were added to the lower models. Once the hard drive of the iPhone gets bigger, and some its new interface features and big screen are added to the iPod, the 2 are indistinguishable and become one: "iPod"

"iPhone" = "iPod phone" - "Pod"

why, oh why, while the iPod is still riding so high in the mind of the general public, would they subtract out the "Pod"??? "iPod phone" tells Joe Consumer exactly what this thing is..."iPhone", not so much...:confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top