Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Cisco Suing Apple For iPhone Trademark Infringement
- Thread starter majiklantrn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It doesn't seem to me as though Apple could be in much hot water here. The only question is will they be able to stop Cisco from using the name. A major argument would be to ask any person that if you released a new product and called it iProduct who would you assume it is made by.
The i prefix is an Apple staple and although it is a minute piece of many registered trademarks, it could put Apple on the winning side of this one.
The i prefix is an Apple staple and although it is a minute piece of many registered trademarks, it could put Apple on the winning side of this one.
Now I don't know if this means anything, but apples website, on all the pages to do with the iPhone, minus the front page and the top tab and any descriptions, all use (applesymbol)iPhone. Could this be insurance? I mean apple don't do that for any other product.
Cisco has the duty to protect the name.
I think this is much ado about nothing.
It costs what? $60.00 to file a suit. They have the obligation to protect the property, it's a requirment of the law.
1) Apple jumped the gun before returning the signed contract and announced the "iPhone".
2) Cisco initiates protective action of the name
3) Apple returns signed contract
4) Cisco drops suit
5) 20 years from now if it ever comes up, or becomes cloudy who really owns the name, then Cisco can point to the filed suit as an attempt at protection of the name they owned.
edit: I just have a feeling that Apple is not going to use iPhone anyway. It struck me kind of funny how Steve said it. He said "We're calling it the iPhone", that's almost exactly like what he said about iTV.
Could "iPhone" just be a code word until it is available for sale, then they change the name to "Apple Phone"? If not, then why make the point at the very end about changing from Apple Computer Inc. to Apple Inc.?
I wonder if eventually we will see the word Apple replace the "i" infront of very obvious names:
Apple Toaster
Apple Phone Video
Apple Phone Nano
Apple Phone Shuffle
Apple TV
Apple Vibrator
Apple on and on
I think this is much ado about nothing.
It costs what? $60.00 to file a suit. They have the obligation to protect the property, it's a requirment of the law.
1) Apple jumped the gun before returning the signed contract and announced the "iPhone".
2) Cisco initiates protective action of the name
3) Apple returns signed contract
4) Cisco drops suit
5) 20 years from now if it ever comes up, or becomes cloudy who really owns the name, then Cisco can point to the filed suit as an attempt at protection of the name they owned.
edit: I just have a feeling that Apple is not going to use iPhone anyway. It struck me kind of funny how Steve said it. He said "We're calling it the iPhone", that's almost exactly like what he said about iTV.
Could "iPhone" just be a code word until it is available for sale, then they change the name to "Apple Phone"? If not, then why make the point at the very end about changing from Apple Computer Inc. to Apple Inc.?
I wonder if eventually we will see the word Apple replace the "i" infront of very obvious names:
Apple Toaster
Apple Phone Video
Apple Phone Nano
Apple Phone Shuffle
Apple TV
Apple Vibrator
Apple on and on
Unavoidable?
This is probably what has happened:
- The rumor mills, analysts, pundits and wall street players all attached Apples phone project to the name 'iPhone' very early on.
- Multiple news stories ran that more or less grew the legend of this phone beyond all reason, to the point where various analysts were saying that Apple HAD to announce this phone at MacWorld. How exactly that fever pitch built and why analysts were saying it was so important - who knows?
- Apple marketing recognized that it was important to announce the phone at MacWorld, and Steve did too. Problem - Cisco owns the name in the US. Marketing would insist that Apple had to use the iPhone name, because all of the free press before and after MacWorld would have to remain consistent to the name, or there was a danger of people thinking Ciscos POS was the 'iPhone' that everyone was waiting for.
- Steve basically decided that since they were only announcing the phone now, they could call it iPhone and try to negotiate with Cisco. In the meantime all of the press would continue to call the device the 'iPhone' and Apple could try to get the name.
- If negotations with Cisco fell through (which Apple probably already knew they would) the worst case scenario would be that Apple would be legally required to change the name. This ruling of course would come long after all of the press hype had evaporated.
- Once the name is changed, Apple will get all kinds of free press a few months down the road announcing the name change much closer to the launch. More free press.
So - did Apple predict that this would happen? Probably. In fact, they probably wanted it to. What do you want to bet that the negotiations with Cisco went something like this:
Apple: Hi! You guys suck! Give us the iPhone name!
Cisco: Huh? I thought you guys wanted to negotate in good faith?
Apple: Did your mommy dress you this morning?
Cisco: Whats going on here? Why are you being like this?
Apple: Give us the iPhone name you unkempt malcontents!!
Cisco: See you in court.
Apple:
----------------------------
This is probably what has happened:
- The rumor mills, analysts, pundits and wall street players all attached Apples phone project to the name 'iPhone' very early on.
- Multiple news stories ran that more or less grew the legend of this phone beyond all reason, to the point where various analysts were saying that Apple HAD to announce this phone at MacWorld. How exactly that fever pitch built and why analysts were saying it was so important - who knows?
- Apple marketing recognized that it was important to announce the phone at MacWorld, and Steve did too. Problem - Cisco owns the name in the US. Marketing would insist that Apple had to use the iPhone name, because all of the free press before and after MacWorld would have to remain consistent to the name, or there was a danger of people thinking Ciscos POS was the 'iPhone' that everyone was waiting for.
- Steve basically decided that since they were only announcing the phone now, they could call it iPhone and try to negotiate with Cisco. In the meantime all of the press would continue to call the device the 'iPhone' and Apple could try to get the name.
- If negotations with Cisco fell through (which Apple probably already knew they would) the worst case scenario would be that Apple would be legally required to change the name. This ruling of course would come long after all of the press hype had evaporated.
- Once the name is changed, Apple will get all kinds of free press a few months down the road announcing the name change much closer to the launch. More free press.
So - did Apple predict that this would happen? Probably. In fact, they probably wanted it to. What do you want to bet that the negotiations with Cisco went something like this:
Apple: Hi! You guys suck! Give us the iPhone name!
Cisco: Huh? I thought you guys wanted to negotate in good faith?
Apple: Did your mommy dress you this morning?
Cisco: Whats going on here? Why are you being like this?
Apple: Give us the iPhone name you unkempt malcontents!!
Cisco: See you in court.
Apple:
----------------------------
I hate to be crude, well not really, but that sounds like something you do in a bathroom.
Still phonetically the same.
Apple must know what they're doing. If even casual observers knew about Cisco's trademark, then Apple definitely knew. So let's see. Here's my theory... somehow Cisco was being uncooperative and leaning toward saying no, so Apple went public, took ownership of the name in the minds of the general public and maybe force Cisco to reconsider. Who knows?
Apple: We'd like to use iPhone as the name for our new product.
Cisco: Sorry, we own it.
Apple: Can we work out a deal? Maybe we can pay you 20 million bucks to use it. That would cover your marketing and you could re-brand your phone. We *really* wanna use that name and we'd pay that much for it.
Cisco: Maybe, how about 30 million?
Apple: Um... okay. 30 million.
Cisco: No, let's make it 40 million.
Apple: No, 30 million sounds good.
Cisco: No, screw off. We've changed our minds now.
(Apple goes public with the iPhone name.)
Cisco: Damn, you've grabbed major headlines with that. We may own the iPhone trademark, but everyone on the planet now thinks it's yours. We're suing you.
Apple: Hey, I have an idea. Let's talk about us buying it from you again. How does $30 million sound? That would more than cover re-branding and could avoid a lot of messy legal entanglements.
EDIT: Avicdar, I seriously did not see your post before posting mine. Weird. Same idea, same sort of post. Oh well... great minds and all that.
Apple: We'd like to use iPhone as the name for our new product.
Cisco: Sorry, we own it.
Apple: Can we work out a deal? Maybe we can pay you 20 million bucks to use it. That would cover your marketing and you could re-brand your phone. We *really* wanna use that name and we'd pay that much for it.
Cisco: Maybe, how about 30 million?
Apple: Um... okay. 30 million.
Cisco: No, let's make it 40 million.
Apple: No, 30 million sounds good.
Cisco: No, screw off. We've changed our minds now.
(Apple goes public with the iPhone name.)
Cisco: Damn, you've grabbed major headlines with that. We may own the iPhone trademark, but everyone on the planet now thinks it's yours. We're suing you.
Apple: Hey, I have an idea. Let's talk about us buying it from you again. How does $30 million sound? That would more than cover re-branding and could avoid a lot of messy legal entanglements.
EDIT: Avicdar, I seriously did not see your post before posting mine. Weird. Same idea, same sort of post. Oh well... great minds and all that.
Though some of us prefer to do it in the toilet.I hate to be crude, well not really, but that sounds like something you do in a bathroom.
Perhaps they could get on an launch the iPhone in Europe first, while they sort out this legal mess?
hehe
hehe
I try, but my aim isn't as good as it used to be.Though some of us prefer to do it in the toilet.
Oy vey. How could Apple legal not see this coming? They really should have named it something else.
I like Apple Phone better than iPhone anyways
not everyone know that i(everything) is a apple thing so I think Apple Phone would be better for apple
or they could just take out the phone part and add some storage and I would be just fine
not everyone know that i(everything) is a apple thing so I think Apple Phone would be better for apple
or they could just take out the phone part and add some storage and I would be just fine
I think Apple was definitely in the wrong in this case, and that if it were to make it to court (which it won't), then they would lose. However, they'll string it out for a while for the publicity, then drop the i and call it the Apple Phone (the symbol, but I'm on the stupid library computers with Windows at the moment). Heck, everyone's just going to be asking for "that Apple Phone" anyways, why not use the name? I think it's kinda playing dirty, but hey, Apple's not afraid to play that way sometimes.
jW
jW
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA
Like its gona matter they got there 1% mobile market without even selling one what ever they want to call it sorry its funny as **** to me its because of rumors its was given the name iPhone and what was the big point made the touch stuff is copyrighted but no mention of a real name for it so apple will name it @phone or iMobile or even better Weownu
Like its gona matter they got there 1% mobile market without even selling one what ever they want to call it sorry its funny as **** to me its because of rumors its was given the name iPhone and what was the big point made the touch stuff is copyrighted but no mention of a real name for it so apple will name it @phone or iMobile or even better Weownu
You might be correct.
In Japan, another company holds the trademark for "Airport" and markets a wireless router under that brand name, (I own one and it's actually a pretty decent little device). So, in Japan, Apple's Airport is called AirMac.
I could see Apple selling its phone as the iPhone in the countries where it holds that trademark, and as an ApplePhone in the States.
I thought it was all to good to be true.
Let the legal fun begin!
Cisco 1
Apple 0
Id say
APPLE: 2
CISCO: 1
Please do a search at the US Patten page. Guess what? Apple has a patten for a mobile phone called iPhone. Cisco has a patten for an iPhone that does not mention cell phones or mobile phones in the patten at all, only internet phone. Looks like Apple has the upper hand on this one if you ask me.
Why they beat apple to it simple as they saw a chance to get some mass intret and took it apple new the big fuss over this phone of theres and they fluffed it big time