Sidebar Sidebar
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

kresh said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think this is the most likely scenario since Cisco can not sell products with that name overseas. They are both at an impass and can go for a very lenghty law suit or can quickly settle it out.

Settle is cheaper and both can sell their product in the mean time (one of them under a different name).
 
I personally think its a crap shoot if it ever went to court.

Apple Corp. (or whatever the Beatles company is called) tried to use the same defense, but essentially the courts found that they are two non-competing industries.

The Cisco iPhone doesn't really compete with the Apple iPhone.

Sounds like a little marketing ploy by Cisco to get their name in the news, probably to squeeze a little more cash out of the deal.

I wouldn't be too upset over a name change, but I'm sure Steve and company would be pissed about missing the brand recognition.
 
macFanDave said:
to assume the iPhone name without getting Cisco's blessing are missing the point.

As long as this controversy goes on, Apple will be getting daily free publicity for the iPhone or whatever they are going to call it. Marketing people understand a fact that rational, logical people can simply not grasp: there's no such thing as bad publicity.
Click to expand...

While I agree somewhat in this case (because the news isn't gutterally bad; it is bad if and only if you think about it, and that does fade), that's a wonderful example of Famous Last Words. To go completely obvious: I don't think Mark Foley would agree that no publicity is bad publicity.

Anyways, iAnything is a rip-off of iMac, so, in reality, Apple really owns all of those names and reserves the right to use them whenever it wants.
Click to expand...

As someone pointed out at some point in the last month, you can't trademark a regular expression. "i.*" is not trademarkable. Examples in computers alone: "486", "IBM Compatible", etc.

Some camera company made a camera called the *ist. Anyone naming their product the *ster, or the *meister is just waiting to get screwed. Same thing with Cisco.
Click to expand...

Funny you mention the "*ist". I see that as Exhibit A as for why "[apple symbol]TV" is a really crappy brand name. People tend to avoid products when they can not pronounce their names (a fact on which Apple has capitalized perhaps more than any other electronics company out there), and generally non-alphabetic symbols are non-pronouncable.

The *ist was widely regarded as far superior to where it ended up in the market, and the primary reason for its (relative) failure was that no one knew how to pronounce the name ("star-ist" being the most used pronunciation, but when people used that pronunciation they weren't confident in how they pronounced it, and others hearing the name couldn't look it up) and it is next to impossible to plug into a friendly search engine (Google actually made some mods to allow "*ist" as a search term, IIRC).

Now, Apple could mitigate this failure to some extent by mounting a huge TV campaign where the announcer says "Apple TV" when the (symbol)-TV brand is on the screen, and if we had a whole fleet of such-named products then the branding would feed off itself, but they're fighting an uphill battle there. I mean, take the "iName" convention: how often do you STILL, even after the success of the iMac and then even larger success of the iPod, see people type (or accept their word processor's correction to) "Iapp"? Seems like a really boneheaded decision.

All of which appears to be off topic, so let me bring it back around: sounds like the same boneheads who came up with (apple symbol)TV also decided to go ahead and use the name of a product which was just announced a few weeks ago instead of coming up with their own original (probably boneheaded) name.

IMHO, if they really want (apple symbol)TV to work they should name this (apple symbol)Phone, and the next 'n' devices should be likewise named. Then you've got a brand, and you've beaten how to pronounce this symbol into everyone's brain by the third or fourth product so it's no longer a detriment in the market.
 
Apple needs to give it up and give Cisco the name. It's a crappy name anyway. All this i"Stuff" is getting old and cheezy.

I don't know what they should call it but surely Apple can come up with something better than iPhone. It's dull and too "CISCOish".
 
FreeState said:
Its a little late for that. The general public already called Apples phone the iPhone. If they were serious about protecting it they would have told just about everyone to stop using it as a term for Apples phone years ago.
Click to expand...


You can't stop people from stop calling rumours of an Apple phone 'iPhone' - how are they going to do that!!!!?

How many people knew Apple patents were named 'iPhone'? Very little I expect so Apple can't claim that.

Anyway, remember Rendevous? Apple lost that and Apple were using that name for a while before the other company sued.
 
rdowns said:
Further muddying the waters is Apple owning the iphone.org domain for years.
Click to expand...
That won't have a big bearing on the case because the registration process is anything but formal. Anyone can register any domain name, ignoring any trademarks already in place. Just because you register a domain name, doesn't give you the right to use it for any other purpose. For example, just because (in theory) I can register "coca-cola.com", doesn't give me the right to name my product "coca-cola".

Besides, the courts don't usually approve of people or companies registering domain names for products unless they own the trademark.
 
When I saw the @TV (Apple Logo=@) I almost assumed it would be the @Phone. I mean, it makes sense. From now on, "Mac" goes before the Macintosh stuff, @ goes before the non-mac but Apple stuff. The only i to remain would be for iPod simply because thats its identity and a change would be severely detrimental. But then Apple just HAD to call it iPhone and keep the i arround. Ugh. :rolleyes:

The Cisco iPhone is definitely a publicity stunt for Cisco. In fact, I wish Apple could sue all the products that use the i before the product since it is all a ripoff of the iPods success and I would say an attempt to confuse consumers.

The bottom line here is if Apple and the iPod never happened, Cisco's VoIP phone would almost certainly not be called iPhone. But in the twisted trademark system we enjoy here in the US, Apple will probably have to pay out the nose.
 
FreeState said:
Here:
http://www.uspto.gov/main/profiles/acadres.htm

then click on the search trademarks on the top of the red area (right side). Type iPhone in the search box

this might expire but here is a direct link http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfiel...h&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query
Click to expand...

errr... i might not know how to read it, i saw 9 results, 4 are alive, 5 are dead, but none of them belongs to neither cicso nor apple, something wrong there?

edit, i saw one by Cisico, but no apple
 
Patents found using "iPhone" as search query

I didn't take the time to click on every single link, but there are many companies listed as assignees here, including Microsoft. Note: these seem to pop up because "iPhone" is mentioned under "description of related art".

PAT. NO. Title
1 D531,613 Full-Text Telephone
2 7,106,726 Full-Text Internet switch box, system and method for internet telephony
3 7,046,994 Full-Text System and method for associating a contact with a call ID
4 7,035,620 Full-Text Playing of audio via voice calls initiated from visual navigation
5 6,975,712 Full-Text Common visual and functional architecture for presenting and controlling arbitrary telephone line features
6 6,836,765 Full-Text System and method for secure and address verifiable electronic commerce transactions
7 6,778,652 Full-Text Method and apparatus for establishing and facilitating a voice call connection from a client computer to a PSTN extension
8 6,757,363 Full-Text Method and apparatus for operating a telephone as an independent network client
9 6,687,339 Full-Text Controller for use with communications systems for converting a voice message to a text message
10 6,671,272 Full-Text Internet switch box, system and method for internet telephony
11 6,661,878 Full-Text Method and apparatus for establishing a voice call to a PSTN extension for a networked client computer
12 6,628,760 Full-Text Method and apparatus for selecting an internet/PSTN changeover server for a packet based phone call
13 6,542,498 Full-Text Signaling system and method to connect idle internet end stations with application in internet telephony
14 6,463,146 Full-Text Call waiting service in a telecommunications network
15 6,389,124 Full-Text Common visual and functional architecture for presenting and controlling arbitrary telephone line features
16 6,377,570 Full-Text Internet switch box, system and method for internet telephony
17 6,320,875 Full-Text Methods and apparatus for providing improved quality of packet transmission in applications such as internet telephony
18 6,310,941 Full-Text Method and apparatus for facilitating tiered collaboration
19 6,304,637 Full-Text Method and apparatus for establishing and facilitating a direct quality voice call to a telephone extension on behalf of a client computer
20 6,266,539 Full-Text Telephone docking station for personal digital assistant
21 6,233,249 Full-Text Methods and apparatus for providing improved quality of packet transmission in applications such as internet telephony
22 6,226,686 Full-Text Server-group messaging system for interactive applications
23 6,212,192 Full-Text Method and apparatus for synchronizing information browsing among multiple systems
24 6,199,096 Full-Text Method and apparatus for synchronizing information browsing among multiple systems
25 6,144,670 Full-Text Method and apparatus for establishing and facilitating a voice call connection from a client computer to a PSTN extension
26 6,075,796 Full-Text Methods and apparatus for providing improved quality of packet transmission in applications such as internet telephony
27 6,031,836 Full-Text Web-page interface to telephony features
28 6,026,087 Full-Text Method and apparatus for establishing a voice call to a PSTN extension for a networked client computer
29 5,987,102 Full-Text Method and apparatus for bridging a voice call including selective provision of information in non-audio to the caller
30 5,974,446 Full-Text Internet based distance learning system for communicating between server and clients wherein clients communicate with each other or with teacher using different communication techniques via common user interface
31 D411,534 Full-Text Internet telephone
32 5,889,774 Full-Text Method and apparatus for selecting an internet/PSTN changeover server for a packet based phone call
33 D398,298 Full-Text Computer display with an iPhone window
 
Stella said:
You can't stop people from stop calling rumours of an Apple phone 'iPhone' - how are they going to do that!!!!?

How many people knew Apple patents were named 'iPhone'? Very little I expect so Apple can't claim that.

Anyway, remember Rendevous? Apple lost that and Apple were using that name for a while before the other company sued.
Click to expand...

If you won a Trademark/patent and see it in the media being misused the burden to stop the misuse lies with the trademark holder.


I.E. Cisco sees Time Magazine or the New York Times refer to a speculated phone from Apple called the iPhone. Cisco must then contact Time (or whom ever) and inform them of the problem. Generally Time (or whom ever) will print a correction in the next issue. Thats how trademark law has been in the US for a long time.
 
This all just add's more press coverage to both products and in the end, both will win with a settlement.... If I was icynical about the whole thing.
 
Maybe so, but Cisco owns the trademark, they have the right to use it. It doesn't change much. Cisco owns iPhone, Apple does not. Up until yesterday Apple 'iPhone' was all rumours. Cisco have the right to use iPhone anyway they wish.



TheBobcat said:
The bottom line here is if Apple and the iPod never happened, Cisco's VoIP phone would almost certainly not be called iPhone. But in the twisted trademark system we enjoy here in the US, Apple will probably have to pay out the nose.
Click to expand...
 
TheBobcat said:
The bottom line here is if Apple and the iPod never happened, Cisco's VoIP phone would almost certainly not be called iPhone. But in the twisted trademark system we enjoy here in the US, Apple will probably have to pay out the nose.
Click to expand...

I think you are wrong, Infogear held the name since 1996 and when cisco bought them over obtained the name in 2000, I think (not sure correct me anyone if I am wrong) 1g ipod was launched in 2001. So dont think iPod has anything to do with the name iPhone. they should call it the eyephone sounds the same.
 
jettredmont said:
Funny you mention the "*ist". I see that as Exhibit A as for why "[apple symbol]TV" is a really crappy brand name. People tend to avoid products when they can not pronounce their names (a fact on which Apple has capitalized perhaps more than any other electronics company out there), and generally non-alphabetic symbols are non-pronouncable.
Click to expand...

When I see *ist it reminds me too much of s*it. Why would I want to buy a s*it camera?

This is a really insightful post. I do like the physical appearance of (AppleLogo)TV and (AppleLogo)Phone but you're right...it's incumbent upon Apple to educate the public how to say it...but how do you Google it?? And how do non-Macs even generate the character?

?????? <<<---these were shift-option-K "Apples" when I typed them, but the forum converts them to question marks :(
 
clevin said:
errr... i might not know how to read it, i saw 9 results, 4 are alive, 5 are dead, but none of them belongs to neither cicso nor apple, something wrong there?

edit, i saw one by Cisico, but no apple
Click to expand...

Word Mark IPHONE
Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: computer hardware and software for providing integrated telephone communication with computerized global information networks. FIRST USE: 19970606. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19970606
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Design Search Code
Serial Number 75076573
Filing Date March 20, 1996
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1B
Published for Opposition December 29, 1998
Registration Number 2293011
Registration Date November 16, 1999
Owner (REGISTRANT) INFOGEAR TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 1775 WOODSIDE ROAD REDWOOD CITY CALIFORNIA 94061
(LAST LISTED OWNER) CISCO TECNOLOGY, INC. CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 170 WEST TASMAN SAN JOSE CALIFORNIA 95134
Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Attorney of Record KAREN MARIE KITTERMAN
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Affidavit Text SECT 8 (6-YR).
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE


Looks like Cisco is in the clear on this. Read the description. Knowing what I know about trademarks and such, I'd say either Apple will pay a LOT for the name, or simply re-launch in June with a new name.

Edit: sorry, did not see your edit.
 
macFanDave said:
to assume the iPhone name without getting Cisco's blessing are missing the point.

As long as this controversy goes on, Apple will be getting daily free publicity for the iPhone or whatever they are going to call it. Marketing people understand a fact that rational, logical people can simply not grasp: there's no such thing as bad publicity.
Click to expand...

No such thing as bad publicity? So are you hoping that Apple
creates exploding ipods like sony created exploding batteries?
 
The Scotsman said:
I think you are wrong, Infogear held the name since 1996 and when cisco bought them over obtained the name in 2000, I think (not sure correct me anyone if I am wrong) 1g ipod was launched in 2001. So dont think iPod has anything to do with the name iPhone. they should call it the eyephone sounds the same.
Click to expand...

Looking on the patent office page provided earlier it made it seem the only live trademark owned for iPhone was obtained in 2005, but I only looked at it quickly. Either way, companies own hundreds of names they never use, if not the use at all. One MUST concede the timing to use iPhone is surly just a little too coincidental.
 
At the end of the day its Apple fault for using the name without prior agreement from Cisco. Apple have no one to blame but themselves.

Read the article linked in this story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back